Sometimes policies must be implemented, based on being backed by science, notwithstanding the unpopularity of such policies. Likewise, sometimes these scientifically backed policies must be implemented notwithstanding that the policies conflict with conservative or progressive orthodoxy.
Many progressives/Democrats favor stronger anti-pollution laws but are against the state’s recently enacted tighter alcohol regulations. Many conservatives/Republicans are fully supportive of the alcohol crackdown but resist implementing laws and taxes that would reduce Utah’s deadly air pollution and CO2 emissions. They’re both wrong because science supports both enhanced anti-pollution policies as well as the Legislature’s heightened alcohol restrictions.
Start with alcohol, including new laws reducing the blood-alcohol concentration for DUI to 0.05, notwithstanding that all other states are forecast to remain at 0.08. That new threshold exactly matches the recommendation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration commissioned report by a panel of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. Alcohol is a menace in ways over and above driving. It contributes to disease and abhorrent behavior. It is essentially impossible to dispute that as an overall society, we would be better off with less alcohol consumption.
The Utah Legislature almost certainly didn’t have the Academies’ report in mind when it passed its new laws, but those laws (and other conditions in Utah relative to the sale of alcohol) nevertheless dovetail almost exactly with the findings of the scientists. The national science panel’s recommendations also include high alcohol taxes to make alcoholic beverages expensive (the goal of which can also be met by simply setting prices high via the strength of a monopoly) and making alcohol inconvenient to obtain (which is being implemented by the limited hours and mediocre service provided by Utah’s monopoly liquor stores).
These recommendations come from a national panel of scientists, and the findings are not some kind of Utah oriented report. The panel’s chairman came from the University of Southern California. I consume alcohol, and I was initially less than thrilled about Utah’s new laws. But I have to accept the science.
But before conservatives/Republicans start their tut-tut about the alcohol findings, they need to understand that science cuts both ways and gives not a care about ideological orthodoxy.
Utah’s air pollution is killing you and your fellow Utahns. Air pollution, particularly the small particles of air pollution (called PM2.5), are linked to lung cancer and heart disease among other serious maladies.
I can hear the conservatives already. They will be sputtering about the science being unsettled. The science about climate change and deadly pollution is overwhelming. Sure, there may be tiny and inconsequential voices out there seeking to raise doubts, but since when have we had metaphysical certainty about anything in life? We make life altering decisions about matters such as the place we live, the profession we adopt and the person we marry based on less than infallible information. Everything is uncertain.
Science is not immutable, and its conclusions must be empirically tested constantly. But we must nevertheless formulate our policies and directions based on our current scientific understanding of our world.
The alcohol laws are already passed. But the Legislature continues to dither about strong laws to protect its citizens from deadly pollution. The Legislature has lacked the courage to even tackle some of the lowest hanging fruit, such as a comprehensive and loophole-free ban on wood burning.
Besides simply banning wood burning, there are other policy prescriptions that cry out for implementation. First and foremost would be a high tax on gasoline, natural gas, fuel oils and other sources of air pollution and CO2. By all means, implement these taxes in an overall revenue neutral way (though because the taxes I’m advocating would hurt the poor the most, reduce other taxes in a progressive manner that provides the most relief to the poor).
Incentives matter and markets work. If air pollution and carbon generating activity costs more, there will be less of it. Conservatives likely feel complacent because someone’s grandmother passed away at the relatively ripe age of 87. They fail to consider that with better air she could have lived to 94.
These policy prescriptions are painful, expensive and unpopular. Unfortunately, doing nothing is worse. Apologists for Utah’s bad air say that higher pollution taxes will scare away business and industry. Meanwhile, there may be an effort to roll back the alcohol laws this legislative session. The alcohol law critics also say our laws will scare away tourists and businesses.
The answer to all of this angst is that we’re following the state-of-the-art science. If that doesn’t placate certain would-be residents and tourists, we may be better off without those who are unimpressed with science.
Eric Rumple
Eric Rumple lives in Sandy. He has an MBA from the University of Chicago and is the author of the novel “Forgive Our Debts.”