Contact
Subscribe
Lifeguards wanted: regulator as hero
Photo courtesy psd/flickr.com
James Surowiecki’s recent New Yorker article, “The Regulation Crisis,” got me thinking that it’s past time we reframed the role that regulators play in our society. Far from being government bureaucrats or straight-edge sissies who merely interfere with the oh-so-American enterprise of making money, regulators are the protectors of our coasts, our markets, our foods, and our health. At least that’s what they’re supposed to be.
But, we need only consider the oil-covered birds in the gulf, the desolated marshes, and the fishermen out of work for weeks, months and even years, to know that the regulators let us down.
As has been widely chronicled, rather than performing their oversight duties with ethical rigor, the regulators at MMS (the department responsible for oversight of BP’s Deep Horizon well) were allegedly hotboxing and getting intimate with oil industry execs.
Not good.
To err is human, as they say, but it seems obvious that the recent rash of catastrophic regulatory failure cannot merely be explained as the fault of a few bad apples. It’s systemic. Here’s what Surowiecki says: “These failures weren’t accidents. They were the all too predictable result of the deregulationary fervor that has gripped Washington in recent years.” He goes on to make the point that because regulation is now viewed as unnecessary and harmful, agencies are led by people “skeptical of their own duties.”
Ironically, even as these agencies continue to be marginalized, the public feels a false sense of security, assuming that they are protected. Not so.
Making regulation sexy
When I think of “sexy” professions, regulators seem nestled snugly between port-a-potty cleaners and roadkill removers. Compare this stereotype to other public servants like doctors, nurses, firemen, police officers and soldiers. Teachers are called noble. District attorneys and public defenders are considered crusaders for justice.
What about the humble regulators? They get called bureaucrats and busybodies. Rather than writing new regulations, perhaps we should start with changing the way we think and talk about regulations and the men and women who bear the burden of enforcing them.
Beyond busybody: lifeguards wanted
A few years ago, as a tip of the hat to his fiscal management, the Economist magazine ran a cover photo of then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan’s head superimposed over the body of a lifeguard running on the beach. This is exactly the sort of makeover that regulators need. After all, regulators are the front-line defenders who ensure that our food is clean, our pharmaceuticals are safe and that companies can’t pollute our land and waters.
We’ve seen what has happened when we disempower and dismiss regulators. Moving forward, we should acknowledge that mistakes will always be a possibility but, nevertheless, we must hold ourselves and regulators to the highest possible standards. Moreover, we must afford effective regulators the honor and prestige that comes along with the heavy responsibility of protecting our health and homeland.
Nick Voges is the blogger behind NMPolitics.net’s Zeitgeist. E-mail him at nick@nmpolitics.net.
|
Share
Tweet
|
Advertisements
|
2 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Where to start….. Ok, having been involved with regulators, not just in America but in many foreign countries, the real problem I have always seen is that the regulators are generally bureaucrats not educated nor experienced in what they are regulating. They are many times political wannabes in many ways, looking to make a mark and get appointed to head whatever bureaucratic agency they are working in. That is a generalization, there have been some professional/technically astute tecnocrats I have encountered who are great to work with and know their jobs, but that is the distinct exception and not the rule. When there are some educated regulators, one environmental toxicologist comes to mind, they put them in charge of mechanical and procedural items, not their specialty. From top to bottom, agencies like the NMED, NMEMNRD, DOI (MMS), and DOE (ones I have had much experience with) are usually staffed by non-technical (or not educated in the special fields they regulate), political players. Can you imagine the credibility such people have with the industries they are regulating?
The Gulf oil spill is instructive here. The WSJ had an excellent article yesterday about the poor and out of date government information BP had to use. The article says:
“BP PLC and other big oil companies based their plans for responding to a big oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico on U.S. government projections that gave very low odds of oil hitting shore, even in the case of a spill much larger than the current one. The government models, which oil companies are required to use but have not been updated since 2004, assumed that most of the oil would rapidly evaporate or get broken up by waves or weather. In the weeks since the Deepwater Horizon caught fire and sank, real life has proven these models, prepared by the Interior Department’s Mineral Management Service, wrong. ”
So there were not enough boats, booms, skimmers, etc. mobilized early on to fight the spill. The oil companies are forced to use the government data to prepare an oil spill response plan, which they filed for each well. Congressmen (sage, experienced oil people that they are) criticized the “cookie cutter” plans they found filed by the oil companies. This is because they have to be that way as the government (MMS) sets the required sections, verbage, format, etc. So no surprise they look alike. And those walruses included in the Gulf of Mexico plans? Again, required by the MMS in all plans filed so as to include all general contingencies anywhere. There are also reports of the BP drilling plans being reviewed by an MMS agent who had no engineering, science, or oil industry experience or background. Wonder how effective that can be? A lifeguard has to now how to swim and life-saving techniques, take tests, etc, but a DOI, DOE, NMED, etc. regulator? No qualifications it seems.
The last issue on the BP spill is that from reviewing scientific and engineering data on the well, it appears very likely human error (perhaps several in sequence) and poor judgements led to the explosion and spill. Unless you are prepared to have regulators crawling all over every drilling rig and supervising all personnel all the time, that will be very hard to regulate and correct. Regulations will never fix stupid. Regulations on industries are needed and necessary, don’t get me wrong. But the regulations and regulators need to be the best and most technically competent available. They need to be fit for purpose, no shortcuts and no exceptions. Get the politics out of the regulation business and you will make great progress, start requiring and hiring educated, experienced regulators for their fields, and you will solve most of it.
brilliant piece, and so necessary! it’s amazing how complacent we all are until there’s an “accident” that provokes public outrage at the lack of adequate regulation and oversight (it’s not just BP–it’s also the Wall Street meltdown, coal mining accidents, toxic lead in toys, safety malfunctions in vehicles, etc.). In fact, regulation is frequently painted by many as the only thing standing between America and Utopia: the obstacle to freedom and more money for all Americans. It’s so unfortunate that it takes a tragedy to remind us of the importance of regulation and enforcement.
It’s even worse that we don’t translate it to other issues and circumstances: how is the Gulf Coast any different than the aquifers under New Mexico’s communities? Why do people seem to universally accept that more regulation and enforcement were needed to prevent the Gulf oil spill, but still attack the NM pit rules that are specifically designed to protect our groundwater from toxic oil and gas wastes. It’s a shame that industry is willing to risk our water supply to save a few pennies (as if they aren’t profiting enough). The people and wildlife of the Gulf Coast are paying a steep and terrible price for BP’s negligence and the failures of the regulatory system. There is no way that BP will be able to compensate for all of the damage and losses, as if there were even a way to do so. The exact same thing can (and probably will) happen here, if the pit rules are weakened or rescinded.
sorry for the diatribe–outrage is difficult to contain. but thank you so much for the piece. excellent!