The New York Times reports on how the Bush Administration has sought to make various policies more “coal-friendly.” In my mind, some of these policy changes are desirable (e.g. making it easier to modernize coal-fired power plants), while others are not (e.g. more subsidies to coal producers). The discussion of one particular policy change caught my eye.
The Bush Administration apparently proposed increasing the allowable dust level at mine sites where companies prove it is infeasible to lower the levels any further, but woudl require workers at such sites to wear helmets with built-in respirators so as to ensure their exposure would remain below the specified standard. Not knowing anything else about the policy, or much at all about the relative risks of coal dust and the lime, this seems like a reasonable policy change.
The article continues to quote various critics of the policy change, including union leaders. What is surprising, however, is that the article quotes an offical with 3M, the manufacturer of helmets with built-in respirators, saying that the proposed policy is a bad idea because miners would not always wear the equipment properly. Think about it. How bad must this proposal be if a company that presumably stands to gain from the policy change says it’s a bad idea? (Moreover, the company in question’s position is that its product won’t solve the problem.) Perhaps there is some other explanation. Perhaps 3M is worried about liability if its respirators are not as effective as the government hopes. Perhaps. But without knowing more, I would say this is another gift the coal industry does not need.
Such corporate admissions against interest are quite rare. Typically, where companies sell products to address various health risks, they hype the threat. Makers of water purifiers exaggerate water quality problems, makers air filters exaggerate the risks of indoor air pollution, and so on. I’m not claiming these problems are not real, only that companies tend to stress scientific data and policy changes which bolster the case for their products — and often engage in puffery (if not worse) in the process.
This is one of the few examples with which I am familiar of a company pooh-poohing a policy that would help its bottom line. Another one which recently caught my eye involves Mad Cow disease. Several months back the Wall Street Journal quoted the CEO of a company that makes one of the BSE tests saying that universal testing for Mad Cow would be a waste of money (and he’s right).
In general, when I see a corporate official making this sort of admission against interest, I assume that it is because the case for the other side is overwhelming. Therefore, in this case, I think the Bush Administration should shelve their coal dust proposal until a better respirator technology comes along.
Update: For some reason, this post was exceedingly popular (or at least provocative), so there will be an update once I’ve digested the dozens of e-mails it prompted. Thanks to all who wrote in.
Update: See here for my follow-up post.
Comments are closed.