Opponents of the rule widely cite the same empty platitudes that are bellowed every time an environmental regulation is passed and attempted to be enforced; it will be financially ruinous and cost jobs. While the implementation of this rule will undoubtedly add more costs to remodeling jobs involving lead-based paint, it certainly will not be over-burdensome to the point of financial ruin. By the EPA’s estimates, the added costs to contractors to follow their specified work practices range from “$8 to $167 per job, with the exception of exterior jobs.” Now there is little doubt in my mind, being an individual who works in the lead abatement industry, that this number is a lowball; however the industry’s own experts insist that, “the added cost of the new regulation is 7 to 15 percent of the cost of a basic home improvement or renovation.” 7 to 15 percent! Does this sound like financial ruin to you? Why is it that economic imperatives are always advanced against human health and environmental imperatives? Must we as a country sacrifice the health of our populous, particularly our children, in order to increase the profit margins of business? Applying the logic that those in opposition to this rule do, we should dissolve all environmental regulations and let industry do what it will. Without question environmental regulations increase the cost of running a business, but does this mean that industry should be allowed to dump hazardous waste into local rivers and streams because disposal costs are too high? Or that remodeling companies should be allowed to demolish buildings with asbestos without regard to the health of their employees, clients, or the general public? The answer is an obvious and resounding no, regardless of what the delirious fringe says.

   While this may all seem to be dead hat because of the implementation and enforcement of the rule as of April 2010, the same oppositional arguments are resurfacing due to the EPA’s attempt to extend the RRP rule requirements to public and commercial buildings. As the morally compromised opposition attempt to dissuade the general public from support of this much needed extension of the RRP rule through economic scare tactics, we would be well to remember the human costs of abdicating.

Resources

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/11/13/The-EPAs-Lead-Paint-Lead-Balloon.aspx#page2

http://www.paintsquare.com/news/?fuseaction=view&id=8474

http://www.nchh.org/Policy/National-Policy/EPAs-Renovation–Repair–and-Painting-Rule.aspx

http://newsletters.agc.org/environment/2010/07/16/agc-responds-to-epas-plans-to-expand-lead-renovation-repair-and-painting-program-rule-to-commercial-buildings/

If you recall, November 2011 brought news of the Jefferey Asbestos Mine, Canada’s last and largest asbestos mine, quitely halting production for the first time in 130 years. It appears production was halted, ”due to increasing scrutiny as science” continues to link “the mineral to serious health issues such as lung disease and cancer.” However, it was not the Jefferey Mine’s insidious owners that felt a sense of moral obligation to the developing world, which receives “100,000 tons of the toxic mineral” annually, but rather the global market itself seems to have rejected Canada’s toxicant mineral. Senior Research Analyst with the Global Centre for Mining Studies at the Fraser Institute, Alana Wilson, asserts that “The demise of Canada’s asbestos industry reflects a declining global demand for asbestos driven by health concerns” where “107,000 people die each year from asbestos-related lung cancer, mesothelioma, and asbestosis from exposure to asbestos in their workplace.” The repudiation of asbestos by the global marketplace seemed to have brought the Canadian asbestos industry to its knees, completing its death knell with the closure of the Jefferey Mine. However just when it seemed the Leviathan would collapse, it was given new life.

Resuscitation of this degenerate industry was provided by the corporatist government of Jean Charest, former Premier of Quebec. The Charest government revitalized the Canadian asbestos industry through a “$58 million dollar loan to the ailing Jefferey Asbestos Mine.” “The Quebec government—and taxpayers across Canada whose federal transfer dollars end up in Quebec’s budget,” began providing “financing for two-thirds of the cost to renovate the mine.” The subsidy also attracted private investors “led by Balcorp Ltd” that intend to “kick in another $25-million” to get the mine operational again. Without State intervention, the Canadian asbestos industry would surely have died a natural death. But just as the industry was on the brink, it was provided the energy to re-animate itself.

This now brings me to the tolling of the bells. September 4th, 2012 brought a changing of the guard in Canadian politics as the Charest government lost the election to the Parti Quebecois and the Premiership to Pauline Marois. The Marois government clearly stated while campaigning ”their intention to forbid chrysotile exploitation in Quebec,” and upon election asserted, ”it would cancel the $58 million loan, confirmed just a few months ago.” Once the morally compromised Bernard Coulombe, owner of the Jefferey Mine, “got confirmation that the $58-million dollar loan from the Quebec government…had been cancelled,” Coulombe confirmed that the mine “won’t reopen.” While it appears as if the amoral have been beaten back, it’s not time to celebrate as “no official announcement has been made” about the definitive closing of the mine.

The Canadian people appear to be at a crossroads. Through the electoral process they have rebuked the ideas put forth by the Canadian asbestos industry that the Jefferey Mine will both “create 425 full-time jobs” and “will also contribute to development in Asbestos, a one-industry town.” This rebuff appears to say that the Canadian people are not anti-buisness or anti-industry, but rather their moral core screams louder than their want of economic growth. Canadian’s have almost crossed the moral rubicon that has eluded them for decades. All that’s left now is to hold the new Premier accountable.

References:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/quebec-gives-jeffrey-asbestos-mine-58-million-boost/article4381594/

http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/Federal-Politics/2012/01/09/Canada-Stop-Supporting-The-Asbestos-Industry/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2011/11/24/asbestos-shutdown.html

http://www.miningfacts.org/Blog/Mining-News/Asbestos-subsidies–Canadian-taxpayers-should-not-be-required-to-subsidize-uneconomic-activities/

http://www.ibasecretariat.org/lka-eu-reacts-to-asbestos-loan.php

http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/all/Canada+tosses+towel+defending+asbestos/7244246/story.html

http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Quebec+asbestos+mine+reopen+president+says/7370998/story.html

http://www.maacenter.org/news/quebec-province-gives-jeffrey-mine-58-million.html

While lead poisoning can cross all barriers, be they income levels, gender, racial identity, or geographical location, the burden of this disease tends to fall inordinately on disenfranchised low-income families or families of color who more often live in aging, poorer quality housing with lead paint hazards. In fact, recent health and nutritional surveys consistently find that, on average, African-American and Latino children, as well as children below the poverty line, have the highest blood lead levels as compared to white children from high-income families. Additionally, studies also show that children from low-income families are eight times more likely to be lead poisoned than children from high-income families.

These disparities in the socioeconomic distribution of lead poisoning can undoubtedly be linked to exacerbating many of the behavioral and educational problems experienced by many inner city youth. These problems include learning and developmental disabilities, lowered IQ, hearing and visual impairment, as well as antisocial, delinquent, and violent behavior. In addition, as these problems compound and these lead poisoned children grow into adulthood, they are more likely to be unemployed, lack secure personal relationships, and have criminal records than their counterparts.

The current method employed by the federal government to combat lead poisoning has been through education cultivation and guidance. In my opinion, federally funded education programs like National Lead Poisoning Prevention Week (NLPPW) are ineffective because success relies on the ability, of what we now know are underprivleged families, to solve the problem themselves. Most of these families cannot pay for lead home inspections, a lead abatement contractor if needed, and most of these families don’t have the health care coverage needed for child screening. Treating the prevention of childhood lead poisoning as an education issue instead of an economic issue is completely off base and failing. Our approach to lead posioning must be dramatically altered if significant change is wanted instead of the negligible incremental change occurring.   

The change needed involves a shift in focus from education to economics through an increase in federal funding to the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) lead hazard control grants program. This program provides local and State governments the monetary resources needed in order to address and eliminate lead paint hazards in low-income homes. This shift in approach will have instantaneous, real results, instead of the ambiguous, intangible results provided through the current lead education awareness programs in place. 

The calculated benefits from immediately increasing funding to HUD’s lead hazard control grant programs, and shifting our focus from education to economics is enormous. If we as a people truly care about social justice the demand for a change in approach will be made, and a gross social injustice will be ameliorated.