I disagree with the idea that environmental regulation has a significant effect on the economic growth of the United States. I believe that implementing more sustainable methods of conservation and regulation are a must if we are to continue to survive at our current level of economic prosperity as a country. There are many misconceptions regarding environmental regulation and the growth of the American job industry. While many claim that environmentalist practices have led to a significant loss of job opportunities, this is largely not the case. The creation of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970 and the current widespread belief that this agency has led to higher levels of unemployment is a prime example of how people choose to blame regulatory policies for our modern day economic troubles. Duke Professor William Pizer refutes this idea by pointing out that the policies of the the EPA and our current loss of jobs do not go directly hand in hand. He states that, “The biggest job losses occurred in the 2000s, long after the huge body of EPA regulations was issued in the 1970s and ’80s,” which helps prove the point that our current economic decline stems from a combination of factors and cannot be pinpointed to merely one set of environmental policies. In my opinion, the benefits from the implementation of regulatory policies far outweigh the costs. If we continue to focus solely on economic gain without any regard to how we are exploiting our ecosystem, we will eventually exhaust the resources that have been so generously given to us. I believe that this extreme partisanship can be attributed to peoples’ individual lifestyle choices as well as lack of education regarding environmental issues. When deciding whether or not to support an issue, people tend to look at the potential costs and benefits associated with that issue and I believe it is no different in the case of choosing to support or reject environmental policies. Suppose Person A is living a lifestyle characterized by mass consumption while Person B has chosen to adopt a more modest way of living. Unsurprisingly, it will be much harder for Person A to advocate for a regulatory policy due to the fact that it will cost them much more to change their current habits as a opposed to Person B who has already made it their priority to incorporate sustainable practices into their current way of living. The claim that, “increased environmental regulation will lead to slowed economic growth,” is mainly an excuse that allows people to justify their current levels of overconsumption rather than acknowledge the current environmental issues at hand. It is not a proven fact that has been successfully backed by substantial scientific evidence.