EPA Is Killing Jobs

[Kathianne]

and which branch controls the EPA?

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/08/11/obamas-epa-ignores-small-biz-concerns-that-its-coal-regulations-will-kill-jobs/

http://www.businessinsider.com/coal-factories-shut-down-epa-2011-8

http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/utilities-announce-coal-plant-closures-response-epa-regulations-industrial-info-news-1547317.htm

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/obama_war_on_coal_zVrf0OxP4RcUfmymSsDcOJ

[KartRacerBoy]

Shocking news.

Of course govt regulation costs jobs. Regulations drive up costs. That doesn't mean the costs aren't worth it. The point of the EPA is to make sure pollution costs are captured and internalized to the polluter. Since capitalism can't do this on its own, govt must step in.
Full disclosure. I worked for the EPA as an economic analyst from 1986 to 1991.

[Kathianne]

Shocking news.

Of course govt regulation costs jobs. Regulations drive up costs. That doesn't mean the costs aren't worth it. The point of the EPA is to make sure pollution costs are captured and internalized to the polluter. Since capitalism can't do this on its own, govt must step in.
Full disclosure. I worked for the EPA as an economic analyst from 1986 to 1991.

First: time and place.

Second: No proof that what they want will change anything other than immediate closings of shops, loss of jobs, and hardships for consumers.

It's an abuse of regulatory power, mandates in time frames that can't be met.

[KartRacerBoy]

First: time and place.

Second: No proof that what they want will change anything other than immediate closings of shops, loss of jobs, and hardships for consumers.

It's an abuse of regulatory power, mandates in time frames that can't be met.


Really? How would you know? What's your scientific or economic specialty?

I do agree that additional regulations in tough economic times can make recovery more difficult, but it's a tough balance. If the science shows there are health harms (think of the additional economic costs associated with those), how do you balance the additional cost of instituting additional regulations (and the health benefits) with the inevitable drag on the economy?

You state there is no proof validifying these new regs. BS. You may not agree with them, but I'll bet you the EPA has done its homework. I was in the Admistrator's Office of Policy Analysis. Smart people with good ideas.

[Kathianne]

Really? How would you know? What's your scientific or economic specialty?

I do agree that additional regulations in tough economic times can make recovery more difficult, but it's a tough balance. If the science shows there are health harms (think of the additional economic costs associated with those), how do you balance the additional cost of instituting additional regulations (and the health benefits) with the inevitable drag on the economy?

You state there is no proof validifying these new regs. BS. You may not agree with them, but I'll bet you the EPA has done its homework. I was in the Admistrator's Office of Policy Analysis. Smart people with good ideas.

1. Appealing to authority doesn't strike me conducive to discussion.
2. Science though is out though on this, not like the ground turkey the FDA allowed to kill someone before enforcing existing regulations.
3. Again, calling on your 'expertise' doesn't cut it.

[KartRacerBoy]

1. Appealing to authority doesn't strike me conducive to discussion.
2. Science though is out though on this, not like the ground turkey the FDA allowed to kill someone before enforcing existing regulations.
3. Again, calling on your 'expertise' doesn't cut it.

REally? So we're going to rely on the Joe the Plumber for all authority? That doesn't strike me as an intelligent way to make govt policy. If you want to challenge their conclusions, at least have a valid basis for doing so. General scepticism based on political ideology isn't enough.

I'm not saying I'm an expert on this issue. Scepticism involving govt decisions is healthy, IMO. And both Ds and Rs tend to challenge only those issues that don't fit their litmus test.

[Kathianne]

REally? So we're going to rely on the Joe the Plumber for all authority? That doesn't strike me as an intelligent way to make govt policy. If you want to challenge their conclusions, at least have a valid basis for doing so. General scepticism based on political ideology isn't enough.

I'm not saying I'm an expert on this issue. Scepticism involving govt decisions is healthy, IMO. And both Ds and Rs tend to challenge only those issues that don't fit their litmus test.

You're choosing not to address the points made. You chose to say that the lack of employment at EPA means one should 'shut up and sit down.' I gave up on that when the geniuses in Congress and regulators kept telling us that keeping Fannie and Freddie getting perqs from the arrangement via quasi government left the US people and housing markets safe. Sorry, that sort of authority doesn't wash.

I'm off to work, hopefully someone more open minded, for or against my points will write. I'll check in later.

[KartRacerBoy]

You're choosing not to address the points made. You chose to say that the lack of employment at EPA means one should 'shut up and sit down.' I gave up on that when the geniuses in Congress and regulators kept telling us that keeping Fannie and Freddie getting perqs from the arrangement via quasi government left the US people and housing markets safe. Sorry, that sort of authority doesn't wash.

I'm off to work, hopefully someone more open minded, for or against my points will write. I'll check in later.

Not really. I just think that a purely partisan debate is foolish. This is a political issue but largely based on technical issues. I'm guessing from your post, you want to rant about it without really knowing the issues other than it's a democratic administration proposing the regulations. But if you want to rant and pretend that's debate, have at it!

[Kathianne]

Not really. I just think that a purely partisan debate is foolish. This is a political issue but largely based on technical issues. I'm guessing from your post, you want to rant about it without really knowing the issues other than it's a democratic administration proposing the regulations. But if you want to rant and pretend that's debate, have at it!

You're 'guessing' what I want. Interesting, very unbiased of you. Did you read any of the links? The SBA is telling both the WH and EPA that this is not the time and the EPA is underestimating costs both in rates to consumers, cost to construct, and jobs that will be lost. These are 'years out there', like the cuts in spending or implementing Obamacare, these impacts will be felt in the near future, indeed in TX they already are.

[SassyLady]

I worked for the EPA as an economic analyst from 1986 to 1991.

Well, that explains a lot.

[KartRacerBoy]

Well, that explains a lot.

Just like your attachment to the military explains your positions?

[red states rule]

Just like your attachment to the military explains your positions?

What a shock. Kart is on the ropes, sucking wind, a cut above the eye - and he changes the subject :laugh2:


Why is it liberals are always doing things for "our own ggod" yet it nds up costing jobs, money, and we end up worse off than we were before?

[red states rule]

Don't forget to thank Obama and the enviro wackos the next time you pull up to the pump







Shell Oil Company has announced it must scrap efforts to drill for oil this summer in the Arctic Ocean off the northern coast of Alaska. The decision comes following a ruling by the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board to withhold critical air permits. The move has angered some in Congress and triggered a flurry of legislation aimed at stripping the EPA (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#) (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#) of its oil drilling oversight.

Shell has spent five years and nearly $4 billion dollars on plans to explore for oil in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. The leases alone cost $2.2 billion. Shell Vice President Pete Slaiby says obtaining similar air permits for a drilling operation in the Gulf of Mexico (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#) would take about 45 days. He’s especially frustrated over the appeal board’s suggestion that the Arctic drill would somehow be hazardous for the people who live in the area. “We think the issues were really not major,” Slaiby said, “and clearly not impactful for the communities we work (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#) in.”


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/25/energy-america-oil-drilling-denial/#ixzz1UuUmzCCL

[SassyLady]

Just like your attachment to the military explains your positions?

probably....it certainly affects my viewpoint ... which is understandably different than someone with no attachment.

[KartRacerBoy]

probably....it certainly affects my viewpoint ... which is understandably different than someone with no attachment.

One of the most honest posts I've yet seen on this site.

Certainly my prior affiliation affects my view of EPA competence. I also think that long term health/environmental issues are more important than short term economics, but of course the politics and costs of regulations can't be ignored. Sometimes (but rarely), the technical issue demands that health/environment side overwelm the political. I do not know if this is so in this particular case (as I said).

[KartRacerBoy]

What a shock. Kart is on the ropes, sucking wind, a cut above the eye - and he changes the subject :laugh2:

She implies that my position is entirely explained by my prior job and I say he perspective is likewise skewed and I'm somehow changing the subject? You're as full of shit as CockHog.

[red states rule]

She implies that my position is entirely explained by my prior job and I say he perspective is likewise skewed and I'm somehow changing the subject? You're as full of shit as CockHog.

anf your civility and debate skills are getting "better" with each passing day

[KartRacerBoy]

anf your civility and debate skills are getting "better: with each passing day

I debate better than you do. I can actually stay on point and follow a conversation.

And I give you and others the respect they each deserve. Attack me and I'll strike back. How uncivil of me!!!!

[red states rule]

I debate better than you do. I can actually stay on point and follow a conversation.

And I give you and others the respect they each deserve. Attack me and I'll strike back. How uncivil of me!!!!

Your idea of debating is tossing out the usual insults and personal attacks. As I posted before, being a liberal you are unable to defend your beliefs with facts and positive results.

I asked you several quesuions about Obamacare and you have ignored all of them

That is your debate style Kart and is is taken right out of the Obama playbook

[KartRacerBoy]

Your idea of debating is tossing out the usual insults and personal attacks. As I posted before, being a liberal you are unable to defend your beliefs with facts and positive results.

I asked you several quesuions about Obamacare and you have ignored all of them

That is your debate style Kart and is is taken right out of the Obama playbook


Again, I respond to attacks. Sorry if you only approve of attacks by folks you like on this site.

Do you respond to every post? Sometimes people address questions posed in posts responding to 3rd parties and don't want to say the same thing over and over again. ConHog screamed in thread that I hadn't answered him and I had and pointed at the exact post. He still didn't read it but finally conceded I had responded to his issue long ago.

The technique of screaming "you didn't answer my question!!!!" again and again is annoying, especially when it's incorrect. I'll address your Obamacare issue in time. I woke up half an hour ago (wife and kid gone) and I'm watching Chris Walace. I'll get to when I get to it.

And your view of liberals is pretty much equivalent to me saying conservatives all want women in the kitchen like in the good old days.

[sundaydriver]

Lets drag this discussion back to the thread!

10 miles or so northeast of me is a coal fired plant built in 1958 along the banks of the Delaware river separating Pennsylvania (or Pennsyltucky as someone said) and New Jersey. It's emissions are carried into New Jersey ~90% of the time due to a prevailing easterly breeze along the river causing a "cluster area" of serious health problems for decades.

The plant owners (Houston Tx.) have been fighting the installation of modern scrubbers to lower the amount of Sulfur Dioxide emitted claiming it's too expensive and they need more time to study the problem. Well, they have had 20 years to think about it since the last emission upgrade was performed at the plant. Do to campaign and over a $1 million spent on lobbying they did get Pennsylvania's REPUBLICAN Senator & Congressman to weigh in on their behalf with the EPA and Jersey politicians. Sad!

This all stated many years ago by people affected by the pollution, then their health care providers, and then to local, state, and federal attention to push for these "job killing emission laws" as called by the OP for those suffering the direct effects of decades of this pollution. So in my view these type of problems are brought to the attention of the government not just the government acting without basis.



<DIR>"We now understand the emissions are more damaging to the public health and welfare than previously believed ...," Martin said. "We need the federal government to step up and deal with this serious air pollution now."
</DIR>Preliminary studies from the NJDEP and the EPA show the plant is responsible for most of the sulfur dioxide pollution over northern New Jersey. Martin said the Portland plant produces more sulfur dioxide than all the coal plants in New Jersey combined.


http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/warren-county/express-times/index.ssf/2010/09/new_jersey_department_of_envir.html (http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/warren-county/express-times/index.ssf/2010/09/new_jersey_department_of_envir.html)

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/sk081611dAPC20110815114518.jpg

[sundaydriver]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/sk081611dAPC20110815114518.jpg

The "sister" plant to the one I mentioned was fitted with the scrubbers 2 years ago with NO job loss at the plant!


If you live paycheck to paycheck and don't like doing so...Improve yourself and become a more valuable person. Don't just blame the system!

[fj1200]

The "sister" plant to the one I mentioned was fitted with the scrubbers 2 years ago with NO job loss at the plant!

I don't think it's job loss at the plant that is the relevant metric. It's what is the cost, passed on to the consumer, compared to the benefit and what does that do to future plant construction.

[sundaydriver]

The HEAlTH benefit is huge to those living near these plants. The Met-Ed plant that supplies my electric switched away from coal a few years ago and the passed on cost was next to nothing in my bill.

[ConHog]

Again, I respond to attacks. Sorry if you only approve of attacks by folks you like on this site.

Do you respond to every post? Sometimes people address questions posed in posts responding to 3rd parties and don't want to say the same thing over and over again. ConHog screamed in thread that I hadn't answered him and I had and pointed at the exact post. He still didn't read it but finally conceded I had responded to his issue long ago.

The technique of screaming "you didn't answer my question!!!!" again and again is annoying, especially when it's incorrect. I'll address your Obamacare issue in time. I woke up half an hour ago (wife and kid gone) and I'm watching Chris Walace. I'll get to when I get to it.

And your view of liberals is pretty much equivalent to me saying conservatives all want women in the kitchen like in the good old days.

You respond to attacks? Really? I wasn't even in this thread and you are attacking me.

[fj1200]

The HEAlTH benefit is huge to those living near these plants. The Met-Ed plant that supplies my electric switched away from coal a few years ago and the passed on cost was next to nothing in my bill.

I didn't say it wasn't only that you might have the wrong metric. As far as your example there are still unseen costs that could affect future services.

[ConHog]

I didn't say it wasn't only that you might have the wrong metric. As far as your example there are still unseen costs that could affect future services.

I would hope that the EPA in fact does take all those things into consideration when passing new standards. My bet is that in most cases they do.

[fj1200]

I would hope that the EPA in fact does take all those things into consideration when passing new standards. My bet is that in most cases they do.

They of course have standards but are those standards reasonable is the question.

(http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/08/high-on-ozone-the-epas-latest-assault-on-jobs-and-the-economy)High on Ozone: The EPA’s Latest Assault on Jobs and the Economy (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/08/high-on-ozone-the-epas-latest-assault-on-jobs-and-the-economy)

The U.S. economy won a temporary reprieve with the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) announcement last week that new ozone standards, which had been slated for this summer, will be delayed. The EPA’s “reconsideration” of the ozone standards it set in 2008 and issuance of more stringent standards violate all three of the fundamental values EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson pledged to honor: “science-based policies and programs, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency.”[1]

(http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/08/high-on-ozone-the-epas-latest-assault-on-jobs-and-the-economy#_edn1) This enormously expensive regulation is unsupported by scientific evidence, violates the Clean Air Act (CAA), and appears timed to evade ongoing judicial review of the rulemaking process. Even the EPA’s estimate that the new rule will impose up to $90 billion in compliance costs annually[2] (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/08/high-on-ozone-the-epas-latest-assault-on-jobs-and-the-economy#_edn2) severely understates the impact on economic development and jobs in communities where attainment of the new standards will be impossible. Congress should make the EPA’s temporary postponement of its new ozone standards a permanent one.

[KartRacerBoy]

They of course have standards but are those standards reasonable is the question.

(http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/08/high-on-ozone-the-epas-latest-assault-on-jobs-and-the-economy)High on Ozone: The EPA’s Latest Assault on Jobs and the Economy (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/08/high-on-ozone-the-epas-latest-assault-on-jobs-and-the-economy)



Yeah. These costs are easy to measure and the science is easy, too Compared to business just screaming "it costs too much!" Christ, how do you measure health costs across teh future and brrng them back to present day costs on any EASY basis? You can't do it easily, but everyone accepts the business losses as real. They aren't easily measured either. They're projections, but accepted as verifiable truth by the RW.

The environment isn't something that's easy to recover. I grew up on a small estuary river where I could catch largemouth bass, yellow perch, brown catfish, bluefish, stirped bass, and many other fish. Until the same river became an effluent source for first a vinyl record porducer (remember those) and then various other producers. Within 5 years our river was DEAD.

So pardon me if I give the reasonable doubt vote to the EPA rather than business. Jobs are swell, but being able to use natural resources is pretty nice, too.

[ConHog]

Yeah. These costs are easy to measure and the science is easy, too Compared to business just screaming "it costs too much!" Christ, how do you measure health costs across teh future and brrng them back to present day costs on any EASY basis? You can't do it easily, but everyone accepts the business losses as real. They aren't easily measured either. They're projections, but accepted as verifiable truth by the RW.

The environment isn't something that's easy to recover. I grew up on a small estuary river where I could catch largemouth bass, yellow perch, brown catfish, bluefish, stirped bass, and many other fish. Until the same river became an effluent source for first a vinyl record porducer (remember those) and then various other producers. Within 5 years our river was DEAD.

So pardon me if I give the reasonable doubt vote to the EPA rather than business. Jobs are swell, but being able to use natural resources is pretty nice, too.


Which of course is the trick.How to balance the two. I personally think the EPA does a pretty good job in most instances.

[KartRacerBoy]

Which of course is the trick.How to balance the two. I personally think the EPA does a pretty good job in most instances.r y

Me,too but it's a difficult balance and economic performance usually trumps ecological protection when it comes to political balls. It really does suck to watch a tiny ecosystem die, though. My little sister (11 yrs younger) never got to enjoy the stream/river behind my house like I did. I loved watching my dad fish for a bluegill and catch a 2 ft bluefish instead. When he hauled it in he looked like he had wet his pants in excitment. Great stuff.:laugh:

[ConHog]

r y

Me,too but it's a difficult balance and economic performance usually trumps ecological protection when it comes to political balls. It really does suck to watch a tiny ecosystem die, though. My little sister (11 yrs younger) never got to enjoy the stream/river behind my house like I did. I loved watching my dad fish for a bluegill and catch a 2 ft bluefish instead. When he hauled it in he looked like he had wet his pants in excitment. Great stuff.:laugh:



I can't relate. I have 300 acres that has been in our family for generations. First my son, and now my daughter get to play in the same trees and explore the same caves as my siblings and I did when we were kids.

We even have rescued wild mustangs here. I LOVE living in Arkansas.