EggsAckely how old are you?
But let's get series now, and look at an excerpt from the article:
Our own United States started getting cleaner in the 1950s, before the EPA was even a proposal. Once people have their basic needs met, they start meeting less basic needs, such as art, culture, and a clean environment....Frankly, only the laisezz-faire lunatic freaks at lewrockwell.com could make the PETA kooks look reasonable. The environment didn't just magicly begin to improve itself due to the "invisible hand" of capitalism prior to the EPA. Regulations and standards were initially imposed at the local level to initiate clean-up. The EPA was created, in part, to "standardize" the many different and often conflicting standards that existed throughout the nation.
Much of what makes manufacturers more environmentally friendly than before owes to technology, virtually none of which has been produced by government.
In subsequent years, the environmental movement was hijacked by political extremists, and has become a major thorn for business and industry. But history isn't the alternate reality that is written by the revisionist libertarians.
True. If two businesses have equal levels of expense and one decides to begin operating so as to produce fewer pollutants (which increases its expenses), while the other does not, the second company will have a competitive advantage. In a low-margin field, this can mean the difference between success and going out of business.
OTOH, if the government forces all such businesses to institute the low-pollution procedures, then they all remain on a level playing field.
Hasn't the author heard of the "Tragedy of the Commons?"
Not sure what your point is here. If there IS a point at all, I missed it.