Environmental Enforcement in the Age of Trump

by Daniel Farber

March 10, 2016

Many thought that the BP Oil Spill would lead to new environmental legislation, as happened after past environmental disasters. That didn’t happen. But something else did happen: BP paid $24 billion in civil and criminal penalties. In an era where any effort at government regulation is immediately denounced as a dire threat to liberty, there was nary a peep out of Republican politicians about these massive penalties. Nor do I hear Trump, Cruz, or Rubio defending Volkswagen from penalties. The moral is that the public is much more united behind punishment for corporate wrongdoers than it is about new regulation.

This makes sense if you think about the arguments that are made against regulation. Opponents of regulation have successfully spun their position as protecting consumers from higher prices and workers from lost jobs. Corporate shareholders, and corporations as entities, don’t get such a respectful hearing. Indeed, “corporate welfarism” is reviled by the Tea Party, and big business remains low in public esteem. Punishing corporate wrongdoers also fits well with the populist anger at both ends of the political spectrum — it’s something Trump supporters and Sanders supporters can both support. Indeed, on both the Right and Left, few things have caused as much anger as the government’s bailout of banks rather than punishing the financial institutions responsible for the financial crash.

The main benefit of punishing corporate wrongdoers is deterrence, which is partly due to the punishment itself but also due to the public stigma that comes along with penalties. After the Exxon Valdez spill, the company became a paragon of safety offshore. But there is another benefit, because it reinforces the idea that environmental law is stopping companies from doing something morally wrong.

It would be wrong to oversell the potential role of punitive actions. There are other incentives for compliance that often make more sense, and corporate officials are by no means all enemies of the environment. But in a time when new regulations are so fiercely resisted, coming down hard on corporate violators of existing regulations may be a sound strategy.

Cross-posted at LegalPlanet.

Tagged as: enforcement
Be the first to comment on this entry.
We ask for your email address so that we may follow up with you, ask you to clarify your comment in some way, or perhaps alert you to someone else's response. Only the name you supply and your comment will be displayed on the site to the public. Our blog is a forum for the exchange of ideas, and we hope to foster intelligent, interesting and respectful discussion. We do not apply an ideological screen, however, we reserve the right to remove blog posts we deem inappropriate for any reason, but particularly for language that we deem to be in the nature of a personal attack or otherwise offensive. If we remove a comment you've posted, and you want to know why, ask us (info@progressivereform.org) and we will tell you. If you see a post you regard as offensive, please let us know.

Also from Daniel Farber

Daniel A. Farber is the Sho Sato Professor of Law, Director of the California Center for Environmental Law and Policy, and Chair, Energy & Resources Group, University of California, Berkeley.

Looking Back on Lucas

Farber | Dec 11, 2017 | Regulatory Policy

200 Days and Counting: Pollution and Climate Change

Farber | Aug 11, 2017 | Environmental Policy

Slowly and Grudgingly, Change Is Coming to Coal Country

Farber | May 30, 2017 | Climate Change

The Center for Progressive Reform

455 Massachusetts Ave., NW, #150-513
Washington, DC 20001
info@progressivereform.org
202.747.0698

© Center for Progressive Reform, 2015