A Debate Arises on Job Creation and Environment

[underpants]

Source: NY Times

What’s more, some economists say, previous regulations, like the various amendments to the Clean Air Act, have resulted in far lower costs and job losses than industrial executives initially feared.

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 E.P.A., 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.

Mr. Greenstone has conducted one of the few studies that actually measure job losses related to environmental rules. In researching the amendments to the Clean Air Act that affected polluting plants from 1972 and 1987, he found that those companies lost almost 600,000 jobs compared with what would have happened without the regulations.

But Mr. Greenstone has also conducted research showing that clean air regulations have reduced infant mortality and increased housing prices, and indeed many economists argue that job losses should not be considered in isolation. They say the costs of regulations are dwarfed by the gains in lengthened lives, reduced hospitalizations and other health benefits, and by economic gains like the improvement to the real estate market.



Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/05/business/economy/a-debate-arises-on-job-creation-vs-environmental-regulation.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

[HysteryDiagnosis]

1. Green Collar Jobs Coming From an Unlikely Place

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CC0QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fuelcellseminar.com%2Fmedia%2F5238%2Fcom42-1_adamson.pdf&rct=j&q=fuel%20cells%20job%20creation&ei=Nq9kToiUPMWnsAK8sqisAw&usg=AFQjCNFAvVP7-VCskrENzR0LsMEKisoKkA&cad=rja


The global fuel cell industry can be conservatively estimated
to create around 700,000 jobs in manufacturing.

Important geographical and temporal distinctions are
apparent in our forecasts, with implications for the supply
chain.

Future projections of manufacturing, installation and
maintenance may point to future skills shortages
The efficiency and emissions savings of fuel cells can only
be delivered if the economic sustainability of the industry as
a whole is guaranteed.

Sustainability is also economic sustainability;
Fuel cell industry to date has created more R&D
jobs than the rest of the supply chain – this is starting to change;

More and more regions are waking up to the
economic potential of fuel cells in terms of job
creation including South Africa, India and Mexico;

[orpupilofnature57]

2. Let Oil and Arms pay for it!!!!

[No Elephants]

3. "If they be like to die, let them do it then, and decrease the surplus population."

Ebenezeer Scrooge, by way of Alastair Sim's portrayal.

"But Mr. Greenstone has also conducted research showing that clean air regulations have reduced infant mortality and increased housing prices, and indeed many economists argue that job losses should not be considered in isolation. They say the costs of regulations are dwarfed by the gains in lengthened lives, reduced hospitalizations and other health benefits, and by economic gains like the improvement to the real estate market."

This article has failed to carry the facts to their logical conclusion.

Clearly, more people on the planet is bad for the environment, so environmental regulations that decrease mortality and lengthen lives are, in the long run, bad for the environment, and therefore bad for everything else, including lives and health benefits.

:sarcasm:


BTW, didn't Obama say greening would create jobs and be good for the economy? What persuaded him to the opposite view?

[orpupilofnature57]

4. The Greening of America? or Greeding of the NWO?

[underpants]

6. "nuanced" "one of the few studies " "tend to cite" "Republicans say"

the writer tiptoes around trying to be extra fair to the polluters.

[w0nderer]

7. sarcasm of the day

love the logic bomb, wonder how many infinite loops that lead to :)

[on point]

5. If the concern is ability to compete on price with foreign firms the answer is tariffs~

If the concern of US industry is price competition from other countries with no environmental regulations, then the answer is not destroy our environment, but to impose environmental tariffs, plus a penalty, to equalize the prices. This goes not only for the ozone rules but also for CO2 as well.

I hope Europe imposes tariffs plus penalties on the US so that we get the message that racing to the bottom is NOT a winning strategy!