The Obama White House made (yet another) move bound to disappoint progressive activists. But good luck trying to get corporate media to explain the impact.
Here’s how the September 3 New York Times piece by John Broder started off:
WASHINGTON — President Obama abandoned a contentious new air pollution rule on Friday, buoying business interests that had lobbied heavily against it, angering environmentalists who called the move a betrayal and unnerving his own top environmental regulators.
The president rejected a proposed rule from the Environmental Protection Agency that would have significantly reduced emissions of smog-causing chemicals, saying that it would impose too severe a burden on industry and local governments at a time of economic distress.
Business groups and Republicans in Congress had complained that meeting the new standard, which governs emissions of so-called ground-level ozone, would cost billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs.
So this new standard would lead to HUNDREDS of thousands of lost jobs? Wow. That’s a powerful argument against it. Where does that figure come from? Is it correct? The Times is of no help–“balance” requires that both sides get a hearing, no matter the details.
But a little history would be helpful. Similar claims were made during 1997 debates about provisions of the Clean Air Act; as this Center for American Progress report demonstrated, the massive job losses that industry warned about are difficult to spot.
Broder was back on the job-killing beat on September 5, writing (along with Motoko Rich) a piece with this lead:
Do environmental regulations kill jobs?
The answer would seem to be more yes than no. “Republicans and business groups say yes,” readers learn–and the next paragraph says, “Many economists agree that regulation comes with undeniable costs that can affect workers.”
A third group, meanwhile, has a different take: “But many experts say that the effects should be assessed through a nuanced tally of costs and benefits that takes into account both economic and societal factors.” That sounds sensible. The article goes on:
For example, when the Environmental Protection Agency first proposed amendments to the Clean Air Act aimed at reducing acid rain caused by power plant emissions, the electric utility industry warned that they would cost $7.5 billion and tens of thousands of jobs. But the cost of the program has been closer to $1 billion, said Dallas Burtraw, an economist at Resources for the Future, a nonprofit research group on the environment. And the EPA, in a paper published this year, cited studies showing that the law had been a modest net creator of jobs through industry spending on technology to comply with it.
That’s actually helpful–and might lead one to dismiss industry claims. Which might be why the piece goes on to note that “House Republicans say the administration is engaged in a spasm of rule-making that is retarding the nation’s economy and exacerbating persistently high unemployment,” before inevitably winding its way back to the “middle”:
Finding a middle ground is difficult, especially in the midst of heated political wrangling over how to cope with the sputtering economy. Businesses are focusing almost entirely on the costs. Environmental groups, meanwhile, tally up the benefits without paying much heed to the costs.
The piece actually does a pretty good job of explaining why we shouldn’t really believe industry complaints about job losses–they’ve exaggerated in the past, and there’s little to show that they’re not doing the same now. Journalists searching for the “middle ground” do little to clarify such debates.
I had read both these articles prior to reading FAIR’s analysis here. The private sector’s reasons for not supporting EPA regulations are beuatiful examples of the simple economic model that so many conservatives and Tea Partiers work with. I’ve stated them before in a previous blog, but here they are again: (1) Private property is a fundamental right; (2) the private sector is in business to make a profit; (3) if the free market is left alone, everyone will benefit; (4) this is a self-correcting system; and (5) it is the only system consistent with human nature. Most conservative positions rely one way or another one one of these principles. You see this model at work everytime the private sector opposes regulation or makes a case for states rights. That opposition is based on items (2) and (3) above: if the private sector makes a profit, then it can hire more people (create jobs) and everyone benefits. Gee, the private sector is really altrusitic after all! But let’s restate item (2) as the following: production and distrobution of goods and services will only take place if the private sector can make a profit. Or let’s state it this way: human need will only be met if a profit on the part of a few can be made. (At this point, many conservatives rely on item # 5, viz. that this system of production and distribution is the only one consistent with human nature. Asked what human nature is, you will often get a dismal reckoning about greed and self interest.) Now, we’ve heard in recent months about a “jobless recovery”. This is closely associated, actually, with planned obscelence. (Believe it or not, I’m still on point.)Most people correctly identify planned obscelence as a way in which the private sector can increase profits. But it’s more than that. Imagine a society in which its productive capacity is small compared to the size of the population. The manufacturer, through competition, will try to make the best commodity he can in order to capture market share. This situation dominated most of society up through the 19th C. But what happens when the productive capacity, through increases in technology and organization of the work force, exceeds what the poplulation can absorb? The end of the production cycle. And the end of the production cycle means and end to profits. Solution? Planned obscelence to the rescue. But there is another side to this story. What really drives planned obscelence is over production. Becasue the productive capacity of society has increased so tremendously, less workers are required to produce the same amount of goods. Result? A jobless recovery. So let’s bring this back on point. When the private sector claims that deregulation is good for everyone (items 2 and 3 above), the model breaks down. Simply making a profit does not mean that more people will be hired.Tthe model breaks down because the long-term historical trend is just the opposite. And those very people that so many Tea Partiers rail against, those underserving individuals who are robbing them blind through a so-called redistribution of wealth promulgated by so-called socialists like Obama, are the very people the private sector creates. On the short term, the fact that the EPA report claims that industry actually created jobs by trying to comply with its regulations means little to the private sector. The real question from its standpoint is whether those jobs turned a profit or not. If not, to hell with it.
If businesses spent the money on improvements that cut pollution instead of millions on highly paid lobbyists this wouldn’t be a problem!
What about those unfortunates that have health effects from the ‘easing of cumbersome, job killing regulation’? They then go to battle against the very industry that puts out the cause of their health problem who then deny the insurance claim because it can’t be proven to be the cause. Business couldn’t be better. So now, when business and jobs are healthy and flourishing will the regulations be automatically made appropriate to address impediments to good health and the People be provided a healthy environment? Better continue holding your breath.
FROM OMB WATCH
July 27, 2011
Top Story
Studies Show Regulation Protects Health and Safety, Encourages Job Creation
Three recently published studies discuss the relationship between regulations and economic development. One study focuses on the job-creation potential of an individual environmental rule, and another touts the economic benefits of clean energy investments. The third study debunks a widely quoted but inaccurate report on the economic costs of regulations. All three reinforce an argument that public interest advocates have made for decades: government standards and public investments in clean energy protect health and safety and encourage job creation.
FROM OMB WATCH
Regulation a Boon for the Economy, Reports Show
Posted on March 8, 2011
Amid a tide of Republican complaints over regulations’ impact on economic growth, two new government reports show that the economic benefits of rules outstrip compliance costs by billions of dollars every year.
An annual report released March 1 by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) finds that the annual benefits of major rules finalized in fiscal years 2001 through 2010 ranged from $136 billion to $651 billion, while compliance costs amounted to somewhere between $44 billion and $62 billion per year.
OMB prepares the report by aggregating agencies’ cost-benefit analyses â┚¬“ notoriously inaccurate tools that ignore benefits that don’t have easily attachable price tags, such as environmental preservation, and awkwardly account for others whose values surpass mere economics, such as lives saved and injuries or illnesses avoided. Cost-benefit analyses also typically misrepresent compliance costs by assuming a static business model and ignoring innovations that allow regulated entities to operate more efficiently while complying with government requirements.
While the specific numbers and vast dollar ranges presented in the OMB report are imperfect, the report highlights the value of regulation and undermines the notion that government standards that impose requirements on businesses and other entities hurt the economy.
Among the beneficial rules contributing to the lopsided ledger are several U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) air quality standards. “It should be clear that the rules with the highest benefits and the highest costs, by far, come from the Environmental Protection Agency and in particular its Office of Air,” the report states. “More specifically, EPA rules account for 60 to 85 percent of the monetized benefits and 47 to 54 percent of the monetized costs.”
EPA’s effort to reduce human exposure to fine particulate matter is perhaps the most economically significant, according to the report. The agency’s Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation rule generates benefits between $19 billion and $167 billion per year while imposing compliance costs of $7.3 billion per year, the report says.
The monetary benefits of environmental, health, and safety regulations often stem from health care cost savings, increases in worker productivity, and lives saved. When preparing a cost-benefit analysis, agencies assign a value, typically between $5 million and $10 million, to a human life.
The OMB report is the draft version of the 14th annual Report to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of Federal Regulations. A final version of the report is expected later in 2011.
EPA released a report March 1 that draws similar conclusions. The agency found that rules written under the Clean Air Act yielded significant annual benefits. In 2010, those benefits totaled approximately $1.3 trillion; compliance costs that year were approximately $53 billion. The value of annual benefits could reach an estimated $2 trillion in 2020, the report says. Specifically, the report examines rules written as a result of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments. It compares current and projected conditions against a baseline that assumes only 1970s Clean Air Act controls to be in effect.
“In 2010 alone, the reductions in fine particle and ozone pollution from the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments prevented more than: 160,000 cases of premature mortality; 130,000 heart attacks; 13 million lost work days; 1.7 million asthma attacks,” EPA says. “These benefits lead to a more productive workforce, and enable consumers and businesses to spend less on health care â┚¬“ all of which help strengthen the economy.”
Clean air advocates are holding up the EPA report as proof that the agency serves the public’s best interest and that its detractors are misguided. “By limiting our exposure to air pollution, the Clean Air Act has not only saved lives but also vastly reduced cases of heart attacks, asthma attacks, bronchitis and other illnesses, thus cutting our medical bills â┚¬“ a huge drag on the economy,” John Walke, clean air director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement. “The study also exposes big industry’s decades-long habit of crying wolf whenever the government has sought to strengthen health protections.”
The report comes on the heels of an agency white paper showing that EPA clean air standards have created new jobs, particularly in the environmental technologies industry.
I really thought there would be scathing attacks over this…………….Against Barack Obama!I mean after all it was his call right?Yet the anger is against business,the right,the tea party and pretty much everyone that had an opinion, but no power in the matter.There are some good arguments above.Obviously BAM did not buy into them.HE FELT……..we could not afford such a move.We in the tea party agree with the president.Im alarmed at the last sentence above by Larry.To think that new mandates have created new industries to fulfill those mandates, is far outside market forces and deep into government interference.That aside the EPA has done a great job for years.Im afraid as this president eviscerates the economy you will have to say good by to a good number of projects you believe in.Thats the way it works folks.
So jobs and corporate profits are more important than public health? Clean air? What clean air? Who will work those jobs if the atmosphere is too shot full of crap to make it possible to breath?