Rick Callahan, writing for the Associated Press, reports that the State is halting funding for state grant and loan programs that support recycling and pollution prevention – a cutoff that will persist through at least summer 2010. Tough times are a good way of identifying peoples’ priorities. Coming on the heels of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management’s decision to cut the Office of Enforcement, it appears that a clean, healthy environment is one of the lower priorities for the Daniels’ administration. I don’t recall hearing that in the Governor’s campaign advertisements, but then, I suppose his ad budget was limited, and he couldn’t tell us everything.

Dollars spent on recycling and pollution control seem like investments that will pay for themselves over time. Cutting them is probably penny-wise and pound foolish. In particular, it seems to me that pollution enforcement efforts should be a priority for devotees of the free market. When manufacturers pollute, they are externalizing their costs of production – making the rest of us absorb that part of their cost. With that cost externalized, the market pricing signals are distorted (the price does not reflect the true cost of production), creating market inefficiencies.

But, back to the article. Per Jesse Kharbanda, director of the Hoosier Environmental Council:

“Indiana, on a (per-) person basis, faces persistently high toxic emissions, which have repercussions for our health – and our economy – and we need a vigorous, sustained effort to address these emissions,” Kharbanda said.

IDEM’s decision to temporarily suspend funding affects state grant programs for waste tires, recycling, pollution prevention, household hazardous waste and public education. It also includes the state’s loan program to develop markets for recyclables.

Hartsock said the funding suspension means about $2 million for recycling market and development loans that had been awarded will be withheld from the intended recipients.

All of this said, I do want to point out that I recognize government spending cutbacks will always involve decisions subject to second guessing.