Politicians say a lot of dumb things. What's puzzling, though, is how much we listen to them.
Some of the dumbest things politicians say these days involve criticism of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other state and federal environmental watchdogs. These politicians are indignant that "regulators" are enforcing the laws they and their predecessors passed to keep air fit to breathe and water safe to drink.
The Democrats and Republicans who passed those environmental laws and created the watchdog agencies during the last half of the 20th century were smart enough to realize that pollution spoils our nation, makes us sick and, in the long run, is bad for business.
So why are many politicians today fighting for more pollution? It's really very simple: Companies pay them to.
Never miss a local story.
If you look at these politicians' campaign funds, you will see big contributions from polluters: coal companies, chemical companies, electric utilities and other corporations that make more money when they can push the environmental costs of their businesses off on the public.
The politicians who complain loudest about environmental regulation tend to get the most money from polluters. Funny how it works that way.
When these politicians can't repeal or ignore environmental laws and regulations, they argue that they should be enforced by state rather than federal agencies. That's easy to understand, too: the smaller the watchdog, the easier it is to muzzle.
Federal prosecutors last week launched a criminal investigation into the relationship between North Carolina regulators and Duke Energy after 82,000 tons of coal ash and 27 million gallons of contaminated water spilled into the Dan River on Feb. 2. It was the third-largest coal ash spill in U.S. history.
The Associated Press reported last week that North Carolina regulators repeatedly thwarted attempts by environmental groups to use the federal Clean Water Act to force Duke to clean up leaky coal ash dumps near its power plants.
Two recent incidents in West Virginia, another state where politicians are frequently hostile to environmental regulation, also has raised questions about cozy political relationships with polluters.
The water supply for more than 300,000 people in nine counties around Charleston hasn't been right since Jan. 9. That's when storage tanks owned by Freedom Industries leaked as much as 7,500 gallons of coal-processing chemicals into the Elk River.
Freedom Industries has filed for bankruptcy protection to avoid lawsuits. The spill will cost taxpayers millions of dollars.
Then, last Tuesday, a pipe ruptured at a Patriot Coal processing plant about 18 miles from where the chemical spill occurred. It sent more than 100,000 gallons of coal and chemical slurry into Fields Creek, a Kanawha River tributary. State officials said the spill "wiped out" six miles of stream, causing "severe, adverse environmental impact."
We've heard these stories many times before. Remember the 2008 coal ash pond collapse in East Tennessee that released 5 million cubic yards of ash and cost $1.2 billion to clean up? Or the spill in Martin County, Ky., in 2000 that sent 306,000 gallons of coal sludge into two tributaries of the Tug Fork River? And there are many more smaller incidents that never make headlines.
Does this sound like environmental regulation that is too strict, or too lax?
Many Kentucky politicians like to complain about the "war on coal" — a phrase coined for a well-financed industry propaganda campaign. But the real war is being waged against Kentucky's land, water, air and public health by companies that want more freedom to blast mountains, bury streams and release toxins into the environment.
Many people support polluters because they buy into the argument that you can't have both a strong economy and a clean environment.
Sure, sometimes environmental regulation does cost jobs and raise costs in the short run. But history has shown that it has always been good for the economy in the long run because it creates a healthier environment and sparks job-creating innovation. Perhaps the best example is government fuel-efficiency standards for automobiles, which over several decades have given us better cars and cleaner air.
How long will some politicians keep fighting for more pollution? As long as polluters keep paying them to. And as long as we keep listening to and re-electing them.