White House Study Finds Economic Benefits of Enviornmental Regulatiosn far outweigh Costs

[tnitsuj]

From the Washingtonpost

 

[BOBDN]

Well, I guess this means the Bush administration will have to reverse their entire environmental policy now.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: BOBDN
Well, I guess this means the Bush administration will have to reverse their entire environmental policy now.

My guess is they'll fire a few people at OMB and cut their budget. OMB's next report will show that environmental regulations are strangling the economy, even if Cheney has to go over and write it himself.

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: BOBDN
Well, I guess this means the Bush administration will have to reverse their entire environmental policy now.

My guess is they'll fire a few people at OMB and cut their budget. OMB's next report will show that environmental regulations are strangling the economy, even if Cheney has to go over and write it himself.

 

[MovingTarget]

Its nice to hear some good news for a change here.

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Its nice to hear some good news for a change here.

But will this have any effect on policy? Doubtfull. Remember enviornmental regulations are an undue burden on American industry and a symbold of government run amock. :disgust:

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Do you mean the Bush administration may advocate a course of action despite clear evidence that contradicts them?

 

[DealMonkey]

See? Tangible economic benefits from pro-environmental policies. Bush should have left well-enough alone, rather than chipping away at environmental protections. The policies that were in place were working just fine.

 

[tnitsuj]

Strange that the people who are usually so vocal in these enviornmental policy threads are absent. I guess they can't just dismiss the source as biased liberal/enviro wacko tripe so they keep thier mouths shut.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Clearly, these wonks are holdovers from the liberal/envirowacko Clinton administration.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Strange that the people who are usually so vocal in these enviornmental policy threads are absent. I guess they can't just dismiss the source as biased liberal/enviro wacko tripe so they keep thier mouths shut.

Probably busy digging up dirt on Clark. Give then time. The Conservative Think Banks, I mean Tanks will shred this soon enough I should think.

Somebody should tell Bush that the sun is golden oil the real light crude.

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Clearly, these wonks are holdovers from the liberal/envirowacko Clinton administration.

 

[tnitsuj]

The silence is deafening.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I don't think anyone can dispute the longterm savings of having "cleaner pollution", the problem is the relative short term. I'm all for promoting the "cleanest pollution" via gov't standards, but I also don't think that they should come at the short term expense of the companies. I also think that Bush's policies have been discussed at length here and I haven't participated in them much as other's because they just end up in an anti-Bush hate fest. I find it interesting that people who support Bush's policies are branded as anti-environment and such. I support his environment platform even though I think it could be stronger in certain areas. Infact I have expressed my 100% support of using an entirely renewable sources such as wind power- it's too bad in some areas of the country have been diagnosed with the "notinmybackyard" syndrome

This report is fine by me, just as long as it isn't used to shove new expensive regulations down the throats of industries that can't handle them.

CkG

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I don't think anyone can dispute the longterm savings of having "cleaner pollution", the problem is the relative short term. I'm all for promoting the "cleanest pollution" via gov't standards, but I also don't think that they should come at the short term expense of the companies. I also think that Bush's policies have been discussed at length here and I haven't participated in them much as other's because they just end up in an anti-Bush hate fest. I find it interesting that people who support Bush's policies are branded as anti-environment and such. I support his environment platform even though I think it could be stronger in certain areas. Infact I have expressed my 100% support of using an entirely renewable sources such as wind power- it's too bad in some areas of the country have been diagnosed with the "notinmybackyard" syndrome

This report is fine by me, just as long as it isn't used to shove new expensive regulations down the throats of industries that can't handle them.

CkG

In other words clean up the environment as long as it doesn't cost anything even though the cost of improving the environment is more than offset by the improvement.

Sounds like the same policy the Bush administration implemented that got us here in the first place. And will wind up costing more than cleaning our environment.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I don't think anyone can dispute the longterm savings of having "cleaner pollution", the problem is the relative short term. I'm all for promoting the "cleanest pollution" via gov't standards, but I also don't think that they should come at the short term expense of the companies. I also think that Bush's policies have been discussed at length here and I haven't participated in them much as other's because they just end up in an anti-Bush hate fest. I find it interesting that people who support Bush's policies are branded as anti-environment and such. I support his environment platform even though I think it could be stronger in certain areas. Infact I have expressed my 100% support of using an entirely renewable sources such as wind power- it's too bad in some areas of the country have been diagnosed with the "notinmybackyard" syndrome

This report is fine by me, just as long as it isn't used to shove new expensive regulations down the throats of industries that can't handle them.

CkG

In other words clean up the environment as long as it doesn't cost anything even though the cost of improving the environment is more than offset by the improvement.

Sounds like the same policy the Bush administration implemented that got us here in the first place. And will wind up costing more than cleaning our environment.

Again your preconceived ideas about me and/or Bush have skewed your comprehension skills.

I did NOT say that it couldn't cost anything - it just can't be more than the industry can bear. You also seem to not understand long-term/short-term implications. How many "short-term" layoffs or closures would you be comfortable with so these industries can comply with new regulations and increase the longterm benefits that the regulations supposedly provide? There is a balance that needs to be struck. Too strict of regulation will force closings, layoffs, closures in the short term for industries that can't afford to pay for the improvements immediately - but on the flip side, they need to adopt better/cleaner regulations.

CkG

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Again your preconceived ideas about me and/or Bush have skewed your comprehension skills.

I did NOT say that it couldn't cost anything - it just can't be more than the industry can bear. You also seem to not understand long-term/short-term implications. How many "short-term" layoffs or closures would you be comfortable with so these industries can comply with new regulations and increase the longterm benefits that the regulations supposedly provide? There is a balance that needs to be struck. Too strict of regulation will force closings, layoffs, closures in the short term for industries that can't afford to pay for the improvements immediately - but on the flip side, they need to adopt better/cleaner regulations.

CkG

I'm not comfortable with the 2.7 million "short term" job losses we've suffered under Bush already. I'm not comfortable with any more. I'm also not comfortable with energy companies blackmailing America by claiming their responsibility to clean up their act will cost jobs. Wouldn't the new construction an upgrade of plants create jobs?

 

[Moonbeam]

I keep thinking of the rotting beggars that will be crawling around in filth to find something green to eat cursing the poeple of the past as they hunt. Their curses, I hear, will condemn our souls to hell.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Again your preconceived ideas about me and/or Bush have skewed your comprehension skills.

I did NOT say that it couldn't cost anything - it just can't be more than the industry can bear. You also seem to not understand long-term/short-term implications. How many "short-term" layoffs or closures would you be comfortable with so these industries can comply with new regulations and increase the longterm benefits that the regulations supposedly provide? There is a balance that needs to be struck. Too strict of regulation will force closings, layoffs, closures in the short term for industries that can't afford to pay for the improvements immediately - but on the flip side, they need to adopt better/cleaner regulations.

CkG

I'm not comfortable with the 2.7 million "short term" job losses we've suffered under Bush already. I'm not comfortable with any more. I'm also not comfortable with energy companies blackmailing America by claiming their responsibility to clean up their act will cost jobs. Wouldn't the new construction an upgrade of plants create jobs?

Ah, yes - keep the focus on Bush and how "evil" he is

Yes - it'd create jobs to build new but then we'd have people bitching about the cost of goods/electricity and then blaming Bush for that Also there is the extreme enviro-nuts(edit - yup, looky there - one just reared its ugly head before I could respond) who make it dasm near imposible to build new plants, or you could could consider the fact that "notinmybackyard" syndrome is quite widespread

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

 

[DealMonkey]

The problem, as I see it, is that Bush is dismantling environmental policies that were already very moderate and which were working just fine. As an example, in California - often considered on the vanguard of environmental policies, Bush & Co are working against us to undermine environmental protections:

1.) Tried to block CA's review of 36 offshore drilling leases, while helping prevent oil drilling off FL. A favor for Jeb? Sure looks like it.

2.) Took sides with the automotive industry in opposing California's plan to raise fuel economy and air pollution standards for vehicles.

3.) EPA's rollback of clean air standards will make it harder for CA to maintain clean air and combat smog.

That's just the tip of the iceberg and only a few examples that directly affect CA. No, Bush is rolling back 30 years of effective environmental policies that industry was perfectly able to live with. If I were to categorize the efforts of the current administration, I'd say they were the most environmentally hostile in history. What a huge step backwards for this country.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
See? Tangible economic benefits from pro-environmental policies. Bush should have left well-enough alone, rather than chipping away at environmental protections. The policies that were in place were working just fine.

note that the policies that got rolled back were mostly those put in place by clinton in his final couple of weeks. obviously he didn't believe in them enough to make them anything more than a talking point when bush predictably repealed them.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Let me help you out, CkG. Many would say the focus on the short term and lack of concern for sustainable "development" is reasonable for a lot of our current fiscal and geopolitical difficulties. You name it: personal debt, Bush steel tariff policy, Enron, Adelphia, WorldCom, HealthSouth, HCAColumbia, Bush NK policy, Bush Israel/Palestine policy . . . and don't even get me started on Iraq . . . are all a function in one manner or another of trying to cheat the system for a quick and easy buck or quick and easy answer to a "problem".

The truth is that Bush has no vision of what a sustainable future entails. He doesn't realize that we don't own this planet. We borrow it for a few fleeting decades. Accordingly, we are responsible for leaving the next occupants a planet worth having.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
See? Tangible economic benefits from pro-environmental policies. Bush should have left well-enough alone, rather than chipping away at environmental protections. The policies that were in place were working just fine.

note that the policies that got rolled back were mostly those put in place by clinton in his final couple of weeks. obviously he didn't believe in them enough to make them anything more than a talking point when bush predictably repealed them.

Wow what kind of logical fallacy is that?

It's Clinton's fault that Bush rolled back his enviromental policy, simply because he put it in the final weeks of his term?

Underlying message....

George W. Bush is not responsible for anything, Clinton is responsible for everything.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
See? Tangible economic benefits from pro-environmental policies. Bush should have left well-enough alone, rather than chipping away at environmental protections. The policies that were in place were working just fine.

note that the policies that got rolled back were mostly those put in place by clinton in his final couple of weeks. obviously he didn't believe in them enough to make them anything more than a talking point when bush predictably repealed them.

Not quite. Bush is repealing, weakening and outright rewriting environmental policies that have been in place for decades. For example the "Clean Air Act" was enacted in 1970.