EPA plant rules would create jobs, report says

What is the U.S government doing to stop air pollution?

EPA plant rules would create jobs, report says

Postby Wilberforce » Sat Jun 18, 2011 6:09 pm

June 17, 2011
EPA plant rules would create jobs, report says
By Ken Ward Jr.

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- Proposed new federal limits on hazardous air pollution from coal-fired power plants are likely to increase jobs across the economy, according to a new report from a think tank affiliated with organized labor.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposal -- under fire from some utilities and coalfield politicians -- would "have a modest positive net impact on overall employment," according to the report from the Washington, D.C.-based Economy Policy Institute.

In March, EPA officials proposed the first-ever national standard for toxic air pollutants from coal-fired power plants, based on a congressional mandate included in the 1990 Clean Air Act.

Josh Bivens, an economist with the institute, based his report on an EPA regulatory impact analysis, concluding that the number of new jobs created across the economy could range from as little as 28,000 to as many as 158,000 by 2015.

In the utility industry itself, the employment effects of the EPA proposal could range from 17,000 jobs lost to 35,000 jobs gained, depending on a variety of factors such as what plants are closed or retrofitted to meet the new standards.

Between 31,000 and 46,000 manufacturing jobs could be lost because of higher energy prices, the report said.

However, the rule could create between 81,000 and 101,000 jobs in the pollution abatement and control industry. Workers will be needed to manufacture and install new emissions control equipment at power plants. Others could be hired to monitor that new equipment, or help companies ensure compliance with the EPA rules.

"The political debate over regulations tends to ignore the overall benefits and be narrowed down to the jobs impact," the report said. "It is understandable that there is attention to jobs as they are always a concern and as the concern for jobs is certainly heightened by the current jobs crisis."

But in this case, the report said, "the jobs-impact of the rule will be modest, but it will be positive."

The institute's report also outlined the projected public health benefits of the EPA proposal: Between 6,800 and 17,000 lives saved, 11,000 fewer non-fatal heart attacks, 12,200 fewer emergency room visits, 225,000 fewer cases of respiratory ailments, and 850,000 more work days because workers are healthier.

"The primary economic impact of these rules is on health and quality-of-life outcomes," the report said. "The improvements to health and quality of life stemming from the proposed rule changes would be very large and make the regulatory change worthy of support in and of itself."

Earlier this week, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson defended the EPA proposal at a Senate committee hearing.

"While some argue that public health protections are too costly, history has repeatedly shown that we can clean up pollution, create jobs and grow our economy all at the same time," Jackson said. "Over the 40 years since the Clean Air Act was passed, the U.S. Gross Domestic Product grew more than 200 percent. In fact, some economic analysis suggests that the economy is billions of dollars larger today than it would have been without the act."
Reach Ken Ward Jr. at kw...@wvgazette.com or 304-348-1702.

User avatar
Posts: 6097
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:36 pm
Location: USA

Postby Wilberforce » Sun Aug 21, 2011 5:40 pm

Greenhouse Gas Regulations And Job Growth Linked In New Study

First Posted: 8/21/11 07:41 PM ET Updated: 8/21/11 07:41 PM ET

A study from a multi-state air quality agency suggests that there may be a huge economic incentive to enacting a clean fuels standard (CFS) and pursuing low-carbon fuels in the Northeast.

According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) organization issued a report showing the economic benefits of requiring a 10 percent reduction in carbon pollution from all fuels over the next 10 years.

The study, "Economic Analysis of a Program to Promote Clean Transportation Fuels in the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic Region," which included 11 states from Maine to Maryland and the District of Columbia, calls a CFS “a fuel-neutral, market-based program” that “would allow all fuels to compete based on their greenhouse gas impacts and costs.”

NESCAUM also advocates pursuing low carbon fuels which “would reduce carbon emissions and those of other harmful pollutants, enhance energy independence and reduce vulnerability to price swings in imported petroleum, and create jobs in the region.”

The report claims that by the tenth year, there would be significant job creation and increased economic output as a result of a CFS. The standard would only limit pollution levels from common fuels, and not try to regulate which fuels are actually used, explains Nathanael Greene with the NRDC.

In terms of numbers, the study argues that by the tenth year:

Employment increases by 9,490 to 50,700 jobs. Gross regional product, a measure of the states’ economic output, increases by 2.1 billion to 4.9 billion.
Household disposable income increases by 1 billion to 3.3 billion.
Gasoline and diesel demand drops 12 to 29 percent.
Carbon pollution from transportation is cut by 5 to 9 percent.

The New York Times reports that the standards suggested in the NESCAUM plan are similar to ones already in place in California.

This news comes when several Republican presidential candidates are lambasting organizations like the EPA and arguing that increased government regulation won't promote growth in an already stagnant economy. In June, presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) suggested that the EPA should be renamed “the job-killing organization of America.”

Writing for Earth & Industry, Zachary Shahan writes that green R&D in the automotive industry and increases in fuel standards have already created 155,000 jobs across the country, according to a joint report by the NRDC, the United Auto Workers Union and the National Wildlife Federation.

Shahan says that another report found increased investment and the higher fuel standards announced by President Obama last month are projected to create an additional 150,000 jobs in the next decade.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/2 ... 30653.html
User avatar
Posts: 6097
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:36 pm
Location: USA

Air advocates: tougher regulation would spur jobs

Postby Wilberforce » Fri Sep 09, 2011 4:59 pm

Air advocates: tougher regulation would spur jobs

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — Clean air advocates on Thursday criticized a decision by the Obama administration to scrap a proposed smog regulation because of the ailing economy, saying the stricter rule would create thousands of jobs in Kentucky and Tennessee.

The federal Clean Air Act has encouraged technological advancement and economic growth since it was enacted in the 1970s, said Mary Gade, an environmental consultant.

"The naysayers want to tell you these air pollution measures are job-killing," said Gade, former chief of the Environmental Protection Agency's regional office in Chicago. "To the contrary, they're job-creating and they help us transform this economy into a green economy in which we can look at new sources of electric power that are cleaner and safer."

Gade, representatives from the American Lung Association and others spoke to reporters on Thursday in a conference call about air quality in the two states.

Last week the Obama administration declined to adopt a proposed EPA regulation aimed at reducing smog in an effort to lighten regulatory burdens on business in a weak economy. The regulation would have reduced concentrations of ground-level ozone, the main ingredient in smog.

Republican lawmakers, urged on by business leaders who said compliance with tougher regulations would be costly and hamper job growth, had pledged to try to block the stricter smog standards as well as other EPA regulations. The EPA had predicted the proposed smog change would cost up to $90 billion a year, making it one of the most expensive environmental regulations ever imposed in the U.S.

But Gade pointed to a study this year by the University of Massachusetts that said proposed changes to the government's air pollution rules would create 113,000 jobs in Tennessee and 31,000 jobs in Kentucky over five years. The jobs would arise from investment in pollution controls and new energy generation, and would offset any job losses from coal-fired power plant closures, the study said.

Betsy Janes with the American Lung Association of Kentucky said Midwestern the coal-burning plants have a powerful effect on air quality in Kentucky and Tennessee. She said the association's annual "State of the Air" report ranked Louisville 10th and Knoxville 24th on a list of cities with the highest year-round particle pollution.

The American Lung Association, which had sued the EPA over smog standards under former President Bush, said it would resume its legal fight in response to Obama's decision to pass on imposing stricter limits. The group had suspended its lawsuit after the Obama administration pledged to change it.

http://www.chron.com/news/article/Air-a ... 161495.php
User avatar
Posts: 6097
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:36 pm
Location: USA

Re: EPA plant rules would create jobs, report says

Postby Wilberforce » Thu Oct 20, 2011 6:31 pm

Posted on Thu, Oct. 20, 2011

DN Editorial: Regulations don't kill jobs

Philadelphia Daily News

THESE DAYS, conservatives can't seem to say "government regulations" without the prefix "job-killing." It's like a hiccup.

If so, it must be contagious, infecting even President Obama: In putting off instituting EPA regulations of smog-causing ozone last month - an about-face that reversed a commitment to strengthening protections - Obama seemed to agree that regulating pollution costs jobs. He cited "the importance of reducing regulatory burdens."

But no one yet has shown real evidence that regulations cause a net loss of jobs or harm the economy. In fact, evidence says the opposite may be true.

Besides, no amount of environmental, workplace or product- safety regulations could kill as many jobs as the lack of financial regulations managed to obliterate. The 2007 recession was triggered by the economic collapse caused by practices that might have been prevented if the Glass Steagall Act had not been repealed. In the process, a net eight million jobs were lost.

While nearly every proposed EPA regulation is met with howls from businesses - and politicians who serve them - it usually turns out that, not only does industry wildly overestimate costs, but so does the Environmental Protection Agency. Research suggests that both business and government underestimate the potential of new technology to reduce costs of pollution abatement.

Some regulations do indeed result in a loss of jobs: For example, regulations can reduce the number of jobs in which employees are subjected to poisonous fumes, incomplete training or unsafe equipment (costing U.S. businesses an estimated $149 billion to $181 billion a year).

For sure, new regulations will likely force the closing of about 20 percent of coal-powered electric plants. But these are the oldest, least efficient and dirtiest plants, which cause environmental damage for which taxpayers often must pick up the bill, in a perverse stimulus that favors unsustainable energy.

By contrast, spending on environmental compliance - and the new technologies to do it - creates jobs in construction and manufacturing that offset losses. And research counters the claim that businesses rarely move overseas because of environmental regulations; rather, they usually are chasing cheap labor and health insurance.

The White House Office of Management and Budget issues an annual report to Congress detailing the estimated benefits and costs of all federal regulations. It found that between 1999 and 2009, the costs of all government regulations ranged from $43 billion and $55 billion; benefits were between $128 billion and $616 billion.

Of course, this is measuring only dollars and cents. How many jobs balance out 4,300 deaths a year - EPA's own estimate of the result of delaying new smog standards? How many jobs are worth children maimed from unsafe cribs or the pain of food-borne illnesses?

http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20 ... _jobs.html
User avatar
Posts: 6097
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:36 pm
Location: USA

Re: EPA plant rules would create jobs, report says

Postby Wilberforce » Tue Nov 15, 2011 7:16 pm

14 Nov 2011: Opinion
Making the Case for the Value of Environmental Rules

Some U.S. politicians have been attacking environmental regulations, arguing that they hurt the economy and that the costs outweigh the benefits. But four decades of data refute that claim and show we need not choose between a clean environment and economic growth.
by gernot wagner

In recent months, some in Congress have been waging a whole-scale war against the Environmental Protection Agency. By now it has reached comical dimensions, with three separate bills aimed at preventing a so-called EPA “dust rule” that has never even existed.

The spectacle would indeed be funny, if it wasn’t deadly serious. Republicans in Congress and in the GOP presidential debates are seeking to defund an already cash-strapped EPA under the pretense of caring about the federal deficit and are trying to hamper the agency by arguing that its rules hurt the economy.

Quite to the contrary. We have 40 years of data to show that a cleaner environment goes hand in hand with solid economic growth.

Harvard Professor Dale W. Jorgenson, one of the deans of macroeconomic modeling who has been honing his model of the U.S. economy for decades, calculates that gross domestic product in 2010 was 1.5 percent higher

Overall, the benefits of the 1970 Clean Air Act exceed costs by a factor of 30 to 1.

because of the Clean Air Act of 1970. It turns out that protecting children from foul air leads to more productive adult workers.

That’s the moral equivalent of arguing for child labor laws by saying that keeping kids in school will increase their earnings as adults. But even this reductionist argument, focused only on a narrow definition of dollars and cents, works to show the benefits of cleaner air.

Overall, benefits of the 1970 Clean Air Act exceed costs by a factor of 30 to 1. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments match that ratio: $1 of investments led to $30 in benefits — fewer children sick or dying, more productive workers, and healthier environs.

In a 2010 analysis of rules passed in the prior decade, the non-partisan Office of Management and Budget calculated benefits-to-cost ratios across various government agencies. The EPA came out on top with the highest ratios by far, with benefits from its regulations exceeding costs by an average of more than 10 to 1. If you care about well-functioning, free markets, the EPA would be the last federal agency you’d want to cut.

None of this is magic. It’s something much more mundane: honest accounting.

As any economist worth his or her professional crest will tell you, regulation solves problems that markets ignore. For example, they ensure that the costs of those who pollute show up on their own books, rather than increase the costs for others — either those left with cleanup costs or the

If you care about free markets, the EPA would be the last agency you’d want to cut.

healthcare expenses of those who live downwind or downstream.

Those who create costs pay for them — that simple idea is the logic behind the Clean Air Act and most other environmental regulations. It forces markets to reckon with the true costs of doing business, to be more efficient, and to innovate. And it does so at a great benefit to society, even boosting GDP in the long run by making us all healthier and more productive.

But is now the right time to strengthen environmental rules? No major piece of U.S. environmental legislation has been passed when the unemployment rate was above 7.5 percent. (U.S. unemployment currently stands at 9.0 percent.) Environmental protection, after all, costs money that we don’t currently have, or so the story goes. Wrong again: smart environmental regulation creates long-term policy certainty and mobilizes capital in the short term.

Sadly, economic models aren’t helping here. Professor Jorgenson’s model, for example, shows large, long-term benefits of cleaner air. But it also shows short-term costs. The benefit-cost ratio may be high, but there are still costs after all. Someone needs to pay for building retrofits or investments in newer, cleaner technologies.

That, however, is largely a function of the model, which, like most others, assumes a Panglossian economy of full employment, humming along at full speed. Any alteration to that perfect world will, by definition, entail costs.

That’s clearly not the world we live in. Our current economy, with record unemployment, cries out for investment to fuel growth. Sure, government can pay to dig and fill those proverbial holes in the ground. We clearly need massive investments in updating crumbling public infrastructure like roads, railroad lines, and bridges. But we ought to be looking for smarter

Smartly enforced regulation mobilizes private capital to meet the regulatory – and societal – goals.

investments that go beyond paying for jobs that will cease once the government money stops flowing. The whole-scale transition of our energy sector into a cleaner, leaner one is the prime example.

What’s needed more than anything is policy certainty. Smartly enforced regulation provides it and allows us to mobilize private capital to meet the regulatory — and societal — goals. Will that regulation cost money? Yes, but the flipside of cost is investment: Much-needed spending is needed now, and it is the only way to create jobs.

Leave it to the CEO of one of the largest U.S. utilities to set the record straight. Michael Morris, the CEO of American Electric Power, said during an investors’ conference call last month that EPA’s proposed tighter mercury and toxics standards would be anything but a job killer: “Once you put capital money to work, jobs are created.” Someone needs to install the scrubbers and modernize the existing energy fleet.

As Josh Bivens from the Economic Policy Institute put it in a recent congressional hearing on the same EPA toxics rules: “In short, calls to delay implementation of the rule based on vague appeals to wider economic weakness have the case entirely backward — there is no better time than now, from a job-creation perspective, to move forward with these rules.”

Indeed, the numbers just for the EPA toxics rule speak for themselves: up to 17,000 lives saved, and anywhere from 28,000 to more than 150,000 jobs created. That should satisfy even the worst cynics who believe jobs created should trump lives saved.

Yes, EPA regulation does bring down the unemployment rate — and that’s just when you consider traditional clean air regulation. It doesn’t take into account global warming, which poses an even larger investment opportunity and multiple benefits in lives and jobs alike.

When detractors speak of the enormous costs associated with sensible global warming policy, we can safely discount these figures. But we should always remember that one person’s “cost” is another’s “investment.” A dollar spent is a dollar pumped into an economy that sorely needs more spending to create jobs.

“Green growth” isn’t just a catch phrase. It’s the only way to reconcile our relentless pursuit for material wealth on a finite planet with an atmosphere at the boiling point. The fact is that sound environmental regulations — whether they address dirty air or an overheating planet — can create jobs and be a boost, rather than a burden, for the economy.

POSTED ON 14 Nov 2011 IN Climate Energy Policy & Politics Pollution & Health Antarctica and the Arctic North America

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/economy_an ... ules/2464/
User avatar
Posts: 6097
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:36 pm
Location: USA

Re: EPA plant rules would create jobs, report says

Postby Wilberforce » Wed Jan 04, 2012 11:09 pm

Environmental regulations help jobs, report says
By PAMELA WOOD, Staff Writer
Published 01/03/12

To see the effects of environmental regulations on jobs and industry, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation's leaders say there's no need to look any further than the Brandon Shores power plant in Pasadena.

State lawmakers passed the Maryland Healthy Air Act in 2006, requiring coal-burning power plants to cut air pollution. As a result, Constellation Energy built a $550 million scrubber system, including a stout, 400-foot-tall stack, to comply with the new law.

That project resulted in 1,300 temporary workers hired for construction and 32 workers hired permanently to operate and monitor the new system, according to the bay foundation's new report, "Debunking the 'Job Killer' Myth: How Pollution Limits Encourage Jobs in the Chesapeake Bay Region."

"First, environmental regulations do not kill jobs, which we hear so often. And second, it's just the opposite: Pollution-reduction programs actually create jobs," said bay foundation President Will Baker.

Baker joined Constellation Energy officials at Brandon Shores this morning to unveil the report.

Critics said the Healthy Air Act would raise electricity prices and could cause plants to close or result in rolling blackouts. A follow-up analysis done for state lawmakers found that didn't happen.

Other environmental practices that result in job creation include modernizing sewage plants, installing stormwater control systems and adding fencing and vegetated buffers at farms, according to the report.

The report cites U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data that indicate less than two-tenths of one percent of layoffs in 2010 were caused by regulations - not just environmental regulations.

The report was designed, in part, to refute arguments the bay's "pollution diet" and other environmental restrictions are bad for jobs and the economy. The pollution diet is the subject of a federal lawsuit from farmers and homebuilders.

Congressmen last year attempted to block spending any federal tax dollars on the pollution diet, which requires cuts in bay-harming pollutants sediment, nitrogen and phosphorus.

The issue is likely to be raised again when state lawmakers go back to work next week for their annual 90-day General Assembly session.

Lawmakers will weigh legislation that would limit the use of septic systems at new homes, raise the "flush fee" and impose a new stormwater fee.

http://www.hometownannapolis.com/news/t ... -says.html
User avatar
Posts: 6097
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:36 pm
Location: USA

Re: EPA plant rules would create jobs, report says

Postby Wilberforce » Mon Jan 09, 2012 6:19 pm

Can a cleaner environment create jobs?
By Steve Hargreaves @CNNMoney January 9, 2012: 7:30 AM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The tactic du jour for environmentalists trying to sell a skeptical public on tighter regulations is this: spin the thing as a job creator.

Last week a Maryland-based environmental group said efforts to clean up the Chesapeake Bay would actually create 240,000 jobs over the next several years, mainly by employing people to upgrade sewage systems.

In a recent report defending stricter mercury pollution limits on power plants, the Environmental Protection Agency said 8,000 more people would be needed to build and run the pollution control equipment than would be laid off as a result of older plants shutting down.

Economists that aren't aligned with either industry or activist groups say that, when it comes to creating or destroying jobs, environmental regulations come out somewhere near neutral -- adding costs to industry but producing benefits in public health or other areas.

But they say framing the argument just in terms of jobs is misleading, at least in times of economic expansion. This applies not only to environmental groups but also industry, like recent claims that the controversial Keystone pipeline expansion will create 20,000 jobs.

"That's monkey math," Trevor Houser, a visiting fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. "They assume that if the money isn't spent on that project, it will get burned in the street."

If the new sewage systems aren't built in towns neighboring the Chesapeake, the local governments would likely spend it on something else, creating just as many jobs. If they instead returned it to tax or ratepayers, those people would likely spend it on something else.

Same is true with the pipeline. If Keystone can't be built then another project would likely go forward. If no other projects are in the works, the company might book the cash as profits and return it to shareholders in the form of dividends, which could then be spent on Bentleys or burgers or whatever it is that shareholders buy.

The one exception to this, said Houser, is in times of recession or extremely slow economic activity. Then companies may just sit on the cash, like they are now.

There is one important difference between, say, a new pipeline and a project that seeks to clean the air or water.

The pipeline would create a new service -- in Keystone's case an extra 700,000 barrels of oil a day brought to the Gulf Coast.

The bay project or the air pollution rules don't offer anything new. No more sewage is being disposed of. No more electricity is being made. An existing service is simply being made pricier.

"Environmental regulations do make the cost of doing business more expensive," said Chris Lafakis, an economist at Moody's Analytics specializing in energy issues. "If you want to make the air quality better or water quality better, that is not free."

Despite EPA's prediction that its new mercury rules will have a net effect of creating 8,000 more jobs, Lafakis said it's rare that additional regulations will result in more jobs than will be lost in regulating the industry.

But that's not where the calculations should end, he said. Cleaner air and water do benefit the economy.

Fewer people get sick, lessening the burden on the nation's health care system. Fewer people stay home from work. Cleaner water can often mean new jobs in other industries, like fishing. And the search itself for cleaner technologies can often translate into new products being discovered or processes invented that improve productivity in other sectors of the economy.
Does a healthy environment harm jobs?

"There are tangible benefits to removing [pollution] from the environment, and they should not be minimized" said Lafakis.

Jim Glassman, a senior economist at J.P. Morgan, agreed.

"Imposing regulations doesn't lead to jobs, but jobs aren't why we do it," said Glassman. "There are benefits -- cleaner air, better health."

In fact, the EPA is required to do a cost benefit analysis that encompasses just such things before every new rule it proposed.

In the recent mercury ruling, EPA said it would cost just under $10 billion for power plants to install the necessary equipment but yield $30 to $90 billion in health benefits each year. That's not even counting the 11,000 lives each year EPA says the new rules will save.

Lafakis said there's constant bickering between environmentalists, regulators and industry about just what numbers EPA uses in its analysis, with environmentalists constantly saying the health benefit estimates are too low and industry arguing that their estimates for the compliance costs are also too low.

In general though, he said EPA's current studies are usually pretty accurate. Historically, he said both industry and the government have usually overestimated how much it costs to clean the environment.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/09/news/ec ... vironment/
User avatar
Posts: 6097
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:36 pm
Location: USA

Re: EPA plant rules would create jobs, report says

Postby Wilberforce » Thu Aug 30, 2012 6:38 pm

Posted: Thu, Aug. 30, 2012, 3:01 AM
Inquirer Editorial: New fuel efficiency rules will help create jobs

Over the next decade-plus, American motorists will find new fuel-efficient cars and trucks in showrooms that offer them the advantage of going twice as long between fill-ups.

The estimated $8,000 in fuel savings over the life of a vehicle from that technological gain alone makes the Obama administration's launch this week of new vehicle mileage standards a milestone event - the first such boost in more than 30 years.

But for an estimated 500,000 people, the mandate that automakers achieve an average fleet fuel economy of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025 also means they'll be driving to new jobs.

Many of those jobs will be generated by Detroit, as automakers invest $300 billion in tooling up to build better vehicles, but independent experts predict that other industries will also add jobs as a result of the fuel standards.

Beyond that, the benefits to the environment will be seen in reduced smog. And the nation should become more secure by being less dependent on foreign oil.

Given those gains, it's unfortunate that partisan politics still have Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney in an ideological box on this issue. Romney campaign officials this week called the new fuel standards "extreme," due to the added cost of producing cleaner cars.

In fact, the mileage standards have earned support from automakers and environmentalists alike. President Obama smartly united the groups by sticking to an aggressive mileage goal while at the same time assuring General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, and automakers that the policy would get a sensible, mid-course review.

Maybe the only thing extreme about the process was its success.

http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20 ... _jobs.html
User avatar
Posts: 6097
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:36 pm
Location: USA

Re: EPA plant rules would create jobs, report says

Postby Wilberforce » Wed Sep 12, 2012 7:10 pm

Employment Effects Under Planned Changes to the EPA’s Air Pollution Rules

Since 1970, investments to comply with the Clean Air Act have provided $4 to $8 in economic benefits for every $1 spent on compliance, according to the nonpartisan Office of Management and Budget.

source [PDF file]
http://www.ceres.org/resources/reports/ ... leaner-air
User avatar
Posts: 6097
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:36 pm
Location: USA

Re: EPA plant rules would create jobs, report says

Postby Wilberforce » Wed Dec 26, 2012 7:03 pm

More hard evidence that pollution regulations DO NOT "kill jobs."


Evidence that LACK of CO2 regulation destroys jobs (in winter resort/tourism industries)

Growing body of climate science spells a challenge for ski resorts.
http://www.wbur.org/2012/12/24/global-w ... ki-resorts

Evidence that LACK OF pollution regulation harms jobs (workers get sick and take time off)

Ozone Levels Have Sizeable Impact on Worker Productivity
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 153241.htm

Evidence that LACK OF pollution regulation harms jobs (they won't buy our diesel cars)

Pollution control body for ban on diesel vehicles in Delhi.
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/new ... 209480.ece

Hong Kong will ban high-polluting vehicles to fight smog.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-1 ... fight-smog

Evidence that POLLUTION REGULATIONS do help CREATE jobs (building new cars!)

Beijing continues to scrap polluting cars.
http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2012 ... 054928.htm


So next time you hear someone spout off about this so-called "job-killing regulations" hyperbole, tell them to ignore the highly-funded right-wing spin-machine, which is secretly run by BIG OIL/COAL. One more thing: these people are BILLIONAIRES. So don't try to tell me that they "can't afford" to clean up their mess!
User avatar
Posts: 6097
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:36 pm
Location: USA

Re: EPA plant rules would create jobs, report says

Postby Wilberforce » Fri Apr 12, 2013 8:58 pm

California's environmental laws: Job creators, not job killers
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opi ... 5419.story
User avatar
Posts: 6097
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:36 pm
Location: USA

Re: EPA plant rules would create jobs, report says

Postby Wilberforce » Tue Jun 03, 2014 8:18 pm

Obama's Carbon Rules Can Boost the Economy
21 Jun 1, 2014 6:03 PM EDT
By Tom Zeller Jr.

With the Obama administration's new carbon dioxide emissions limits for the nation's aging power plants coming out today, the drumbeat of lost jobs, economic devastation and a liberal "war on coal" has once again reached a crescendo.

Just last week, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce issued a damning impact report on the pending new rules, concluding, among other things, that over the next 15 or so years the nation's gross domestic product would be slashed, 3.5 million jobs would be lost and nearly $600 billion in household disposable income would evaporate. And all this, the trade group said, to achieve an incremental reduction in global carbon emissions.

The chamber's report had much in common with one issued last week by the American Petroleum institute, which predicted economic collapse should Environmental Protection Agency also implement new rules on smog-forming chemicals -- pollutants that, along with CO2, the nation's high courts have held are within the agency's purview to regulate. Virtually the entire country would be "closed for business," declared the API’s director of regulatory and scientific affairs, Howard Feldman, in a phone call with reporters.

When the federal government moves to clear the air, fossil-fuel interests hyperventilate. That's not surprising on its face. Businesses are programmed to jealously guard the bottom line, and they are right to do so. But as the debate heats up over the EPA's new greenhouse gas rules -- and there will be substantial debate -- it's worth keeping the end-times wailing of the fossil-fuel lobby in perspective.

Some key points:

Pollution, including CO2, costs a lot, too. This is the fundamental point that undermines nearly every argument against reasonable curbs on emissions of all kinds. Polluting industries naturally like to think of their under- or unregulated byproducts as "externalities" for which they must make no accounting. Fans of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" will understand externalities as the classic case of an SEP, or "Somebody Else's Problem."

But they are everyone's problem -- and cost a lot in terms of lives and treasure. Consider just one 2011 peer-reviewed study from the EPA, which found that reductions in both fine particle and ozone pollution achieved since 1990 had likely prevented more than 160,000 premature deaths, 130,000 heart attacks, millions of cases of bronchitis and asthma attacks, 86,000 hospital admissions and -- for the task masters out there -- 13 million lost workdays and 3.2 million lost school days.

What that represents in dollar terms is difficult to quantify, but several studies have made a stab at it, including one published in 2011 in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. That analysis, which focused on coal, estimated the real social costs of its production and use was at least $175 billion annually, and perhaps as high as $523 billion annually. The authors added that these were almost certainly underestimates, given that they did not account for myriad other "externalities" like the effects of coal sludge and slurry, the prolonged effects of acid rain, and the costs associated with a warming planet.

These debates aren't new. Let's flash back to an article from the Van Nuys Valley News, dated Sept. 10, 1970 -- when the Clean Air Act was young and eager and taking aim at unchecked, noxious emissions from U.S. cars. "Ford Motor Co. said yesterday in Dearborn, Mich.," the item begins, "that some of the proposed changes in the Federal Clean Air Act could cut off automobile production in just five years, lead to huge price increases for cars even if production were not stopped, do 'irreparable damage' to the American economy -- and still lead to only small improvements in the quality of the air."

Sound familiar? Are you driving a car nearly half a century later? Yes, those controls had a cost -- and so too will future efficiency mandates that the Obama administration has put in place -- but in the long view, the view that matters, life will go on and be cleaner for it. Not so sure? Consider that between 1970 and 2011, aggregate emissions of common air pollutants dropped by 68 percent, even as U.S. gross domestic product grew by 212 percent and vehicle miles traveled increased by 167 percent. The number of private sector jobs increased by 88 percent during that same period.

Worth noting: The "war on coal" business is itself largely a smokescreen. Sure, coal tends to be the most severely affected resource because it has the highest profile. But to the extent that jobs are being shed in coal country, the EPA's actions are hardly the key culprit. Rather, the rise of cheap and plentiful natural gas and the rapid development of mechanized surface mining -- which requires far less manpower per unit of coal -- are chiefly to blame.

The courts have upheld EPA's authority to regulate. Industry may not like what the EPA is doing, but court challenges on these fronts have so far generally failed. The most recent decision came at the end of April, when the Supreme Court held that the agency did indeed have the authority to regulate drifting, smog-forming pollution from coal plants. Most experts interpret this as a signal that the high court will likely knock down looming challenges to the agency's rules on greenhouse gases as well.

It's not a zero-sum game. While some jobs will almost certainly be lost if companies decide that it's not worth it to outfit their aging coal plants with new pollution-control technologies, those losses will almost certainly be offset by the creation of new jobs elsewhere, as the new regulations drive investment in cleaner technologies, efficiency upgrades and other areas. A recent analysis from the Natural Resources Defense Council estimated that new greenhouse gas limits on power plants could reduce electric bills for U.S. households and businesses by as much as $37.4 billion by 2020, and create more than 274,000 jobs.

Sure, the NRDC isn't exactly an impartial observer, but then neither is the API or the U.S. Chamber. The larger point is that most regulations have upsides and downsides, and short-term pain is often offset to some degree by long-term benefits that industry likes to ignore.

They brought it on themselves. Lest we forget, American businesses and their Republican patrons in Congress worked double-time to water-down and then ultimately kill the passage of comprehensive cap-and-trade climate legislation back in 2010. After all the concessions that the House-approved version of that bill had granted to utilities, coal interests and other industries, it's highly possible that they would be enjoying a comparatively gentler journey into the era of carbon limits. Now, they've got the grip of the executive branch around their necks.

Americans overwhelmingly support tough pollution rules. Whether its curbing cross-state pollution from power plants, reducing the amount of mercury and air toxins that they produce, or limiting the amount of planet-warming gases they emit, polls routinely show strong support among American voters. In a survey published by Yale University last week, 64 percent of respondents said they supported strict lints on carbon dioxide from power plants -- even if it meant electricity rates would be higher.

Asked whether carbon dioxide should be regulated as a pollutant, 68 percent said yes.

To contact the writer of this article: Tom Zeller Jr. at tzeller@mit.edu.

To contact the editor responsible for this article: Tobin Harshaw at tharshaw@bloomberg.net.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2 ... he-economy
User avatar
Posts: 6097
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:36 pm
Location: USA

Re: EPA plant rules would create jobs, report says

Postby Wilberforce » Tue Oct 28, 2014 8:22 pm

Rebuilding boom coming at Michigan power plants
John Gallagher 3:29 p.m. EDT October 27, 2014

The rebuilding of Michigan’s power generating capacity could become the most visible part of the state’ energy economy in the next 10 to 20 years.

Efforts to battle global warming and climate change by limiting carbon dioxide emissions are likely to produce a massive building boom at Michigan power plants in years to come, potentially creating thousands of jobs.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is refining its proposed clean air regulations that would require states to dramatically lower output of greenhouse gases over the next 15 years. For Michigan, the targeted reduction is 31% over 2012 levels.

Gerard Anderson, CEO of DTE Energy, estimated the emissions regulation will lead to the retirement of half or more of the coal-fired generation in Michigan. That capacity will be replaced with natural gas and wind power, both requiring big new investment in facilities. For the state as a whole across several power companies, including DTE, Anderson estimated $15 billion would be spent on new facilities.

“I would say that the electric sector is headed for the biggest transformation it’s seen in 40 years, starting soon,” Anderson told the Free Press. “This is the most important and most sweeping environmental regulation ever issued in our sector by a pretty wide margin, and perhaps the most important environmental regulation ever issued.”

The rebuilding of Michigan’s power generating capacity could become the most visible part of the state’s energy economy in the next 10 to 20 years. Industry experts agree that growing the cluster of industries that comprise the energy sector depends on a mix of public policy, entrepreneurial energy and general economic direction.

The change promises a wave of new construction jobs as power utilities across the state invest in new power plants and clean air technologies. And depending on how state government works to boost alternative energy with incentives, Michigan’s renewable energy industry also could explode with new jobs and investment.

“It absolutely will be a really large construction project involving thousands of jobs,” Anderson said. “We ought to be able to provide good high-quality construction jobs over a long period of time with Michigan companies if we do this right. That’s absolutely a goal of ours as we go through this.”

Anderson and other utility executives say they’re not opposed to the EPA regulations, but they think the initial schedule for implementation is too aggressive and they’ve urged the EPA to give more time to adjust their mix of sources for energy production to meet the 31% reduction.

Soren Anderson, a professor of economics at Michigan State University who follows energy matters closely, sees potential for new growth if the EPA regulation is applied strictly. But he notes that Michigan and its power companies have many ways to reduce CO2emissions:

• Improving efficiency at existing coal and natural gas power plants.

• Upgrading aging nuclear power plants to keep them operating longer.

• Using natural gas generators for main power generation rather than for peak loads while moving coal plants down, and expanding production from renewable sources.

Some industry experts and entrepreneurs hope Michigan can build major new efforts in wind and solar energy, recycling and in other areas.

“This will depend on the stringency of the EPA’s final rule, how Michigan decides to implement this rule and the extent to which investments in renewables are more attractive than other compliance options,” Anderson told the Free Press. “I don’t see a ‘boom’ but rather a gradual, measured increase in renewable generation that matches the gradually tightening standards on CO2emissions.”

Contact John Gallagher: 313-222-5173 or gallagher@freepress.com. Follow him on Twitter @jgallagherfreep.

Michigan energy industry by the numbers

• 83,600: Workforce in the state’s energy industry, according to a 2013 report from the Michigan Department of Technology, Management & Budget. It’s modest compared to the several hundred thousand who work in other sectors, such as manufacturing, education and health services and professional and business services.

Here’s a breakdown:

• 46,000: Number working in the “energy efficiency” field, which includes heating and air-conditioning workers, plumbers and home remodelers.

• 23,000: Number employed by the state’s big utility power companies such as DTE Energy.

• 7,700: Number who work in alternative energy efforts.

• 6,900: Number in oil and gas exploration and extraction.

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/stor ... /18019139/
User avatar
Posts: 6097
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:36 pm
Location: USA

Ecological Restoration Generates 220,000 Jobs

Postby Wilberforce » Wed Aug 05, 2015 6:50 pm

Ecological Restoration Is A $25 Billion Industry That Generates 220,000 Jobs

Author: Kelli Barrett

Critics like to portray environmental regulation as a job killer, but the restoration economy now provides more jobs than mining, logging, or steel production – all while actually fixing the environment instead of destroying it – according to a new study.

8 July 2015 | Powerhouse industries like agriculture and energy along with their supporters in the US legislature lined up to contest the recently-finalized Clean Water Rule. As usual, their argument is economic: expanding the Clean Water Act's jurisdiction, they argue, kills jobs. The counter-argument is also economic: regulation may kill some jobs, but it creates others – and, in the long term, it provides the clean air, clean water, and stable climate needed to support a healthy economy.

Now there are numbers to bolster that argument: according to a new study entitled “Estimating the Size and Impact of the Ecological Restoration Economy”, environmental regulation is driving a $25-billion-per year “restoration industry” that directly employs more people than coal mining, logging or steel production – but fewer than oil and gas or auto manufacturing.

"People want to know big picture numbers on industries,” said report author, Todd BenDor, an Associate Professor of City and Regional Planning with an environmental specialty at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “We basically find ecological restoration is a $9.5 billion industry employing about 126,000 people directly.” On top of that, he found, the restoration economy indirectly generates $15 billion and 95,000 jobs, bringing restoration's total economic output value to nearly $25 billion.

In terms of direct employment, it ranks behind the oil and gas sector (200,000 jobs) and automaking (175,000), but ahead of coal mining (79,000), logging (54,000) or steel production (91,000).

"There are downsides to environmental regulations but there may be upsides as well. And one of the upsides may be a larger and stronger ecological restoration industry which has a major economic spillover effect," said BenDor.

Quality of Life and Job Security

"This study diffuses the jobs versus the environment debate we've had for years," said George Kelly, Chief Markets Officer at Resource Environmental Solutions, a large company that mitigates for ecological impacts.

He also noted that these jobs can’t be shipped abroad. "They have to be delivered here on the ground, domestically and locally," he said.

"Restoration of natural infrastructure is the win-win solution, creating jobs and long term benefits even after the job is done," said Amanda Wrona, the Knowldedge and Learning Lead at The Nature Conservancy.

But perhaps one of the most noteworthy finds didn't have to do with the figures directly. BenDor noticed significant momentum in certain places for ecological restoration.

"There's a lot of development in places such as Oregon, North Carolina and Louisiana where governments are really treating restoration as an industry that should grow and prosper," he said. North Carolina, for instance, is using tax incentives to encourage watershed restoration

What is the Restoration Economy?

Report authors defined ecological restoration as any activity intended for ecological uplift resulting in a functioning ecosystem that delivers a suite of ecosystem services. They defined the restoration economy as economic activities that contribute to these efforts thus including the industries that carry out the work.

The range of industries is wide and includes project planning, engineering, consulting, legal services, forestry, landscape and earthmoving. Below is a list of the top 15.

Top 15 industries within the restoration economy by estimated sales, 2014.

These industries worked mostly on water-related activities. Wetland, aquatic and riparian and marine and estuarine restoration and management comprised the top spots for restoration type, according to the study's figures.

Recognizing the Restoration Economy

The study isn't meant to be an all-encompassing analysis on the restoration industry. Rather, its intent is to start a trend of more in-depth research that leads to a fuller understanding of the restoration economy, BenDor said.

"We want to forge a path forward and establish a methodology for doing this," he said. He mentioned partnerships with such organizations as the National Mitigation Banking Association or the Society of Ecological Restoration that have vested interests in this industry, as something he's looking to pursue.

Greater information on this industry will also lead to more well-rounded policy debates on the economic impact of environmental regulations like the Clean Water Rule, BenDor said.

"I think this kind of information will support a cost-benefit analyses that could lead to policy promoting restoration," said Kelly.

He also noted the report will help investors in understanding the range of opportunities within the restoration industry.

Creating a Metric

Measuring this obscure part of the US economy was no easy task, BenDor said, in part because it's never been done before on a national scale. Locally, there is data. Oregon, for instance, does extensive work in this area. "There's a Silicon Valley-type thought about restoration in Oregon," BenDor said.

Also, restoration isn't the only type of activity these firms carry out, BenDor explained. For example, CH2M Hill is a massive global engineering firm that implements various forms of restoration. However, the company also performs a bunch of other services that have nothing to do with restoration.

The entire business can't be categorized as a restoration firm. To solve this problem, report authors conducted a national web-based survey collecting data on the percentage of a firm's employment and sales that is based on restoration activities.

Starting from Scratch

Kelly noted difficulties in the past in terms of moving initiatives forward because of a lack of data. When the NMBA advocated for a capital gains treatment for credits, it had to prove to the Office of Management and Budget how many jobs these environmental markets generated. At the time though, we didn't have the information, Kelly said.

"It involved a lot of assumptions, but we basically just said there's a set of firms or a set of activities that we're going to define as the ecological restoration economy. These are the people involved," BenDor said.

He emphasized that this study is not a cost-benefit analysis. Nor is it even a comprehensive benefit analysis because the authors' sole focus is jobs and output-its economic impact. The study doesn't quantify the environmental benefits like clean water and air that restoration projects generate.

But even just in terms of impact, BenDor believes the study's estimates are conservative. It's likely we missed elements in the supply chain and restoration's impact is actually larger, he said.

Kelli Barrett is a freelance writer and editorial assistant at Ecosystem Marketplace. She can be reached at kbarrett@ecosystemmarketplace.com.

• The Surgeon General has determined that there is no safe level of exposure to ambient smoke!

• If you smell even a subtle odor of smoke, you are being exposed to poisonous and carcinogenic chemical compounds!

• Even a brief exposure to smoke raises blood pressure, (no matter what your state of health) and can cause blood clotting, stroke, or heart attack in vulnerable people. Even children experience elevated blood pressure when exposed to smoke!

• Since smoke drastically weakens the lungs' immune system, avoiding smoke is one of the best ways to prevent colds, flu, bronchitis, or risk of an even more serious respiratory illness, such as pneumonia or tuberculosis! Does your child have the flu? Chances are they have been exposed to ambient smoke!
User avatar
Posts: 6097
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:36 pm
Location: USA

Return to American Environmental Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest