Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

NY Times: A Debate Arises on Job Creation and Environment

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
alp227 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-04-11 10:34 PM
Original message
NY Times: A Debate Arises on Job Creation and Environment
Do environmental regulations kill jobs?

Republicans and business groups say yes, arguing that environmental protection is simply too expensive for a battered economy. They were quick to claim victory Friday after the Obama administration abandoned stricter ozone pollution standards.

Many economists agree that regulation comes with undeniable costs that can affect workers. Factories may close because of the high cost of cleanup, or owners may relocate to countries with weaker regulations.

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. Some argue that the costs can be offset as companies develop cheaper ways to clean up pollutants, and others say that regulation is often blamed for job losses that occur for different reasons, like a stagnant economy. As companies develop new technologies to cope with regulatory requirements, some new jobs are created.

Whats 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.

full: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/05/business/economy/a-de...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
CarmanK Donating Member (459 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-04-11 10:44 PM
Response to Original message
1. REGULATIONS MAKE JOBS, for industry and govt.
It is crap with the industries today making millions in profits and hoarding the money rather than making new hires. I think invoking new regulations would create lots of jobs. It would put experts to work to make sure that accidents don't happen and bad products don't get to market. It would put more govt inspectors to work to make sure that each company is exercising best practices in the production line and in safety enforcement. It would put more scientists, engineers and construction guys to work to create, discover and build new ideas and ways to improve production and safety. It would put people to work to create and innovate in order to improve. Regulation creates jobs. We learned that lesson on WALL STREET, we just forgot it for a while. CORPORATE AMERICA are the real free loaders. They hoard profits and then whine when workers demand decent wages to support the american dream. There is not a drop of corporate blood in US soil that was shed to win american democracy, it was real humans who sought freedom from tyranny and that includes freedom from corporate masters like the guy who heads up WHIRLPOOL. He threatened the people of Benton Harbor, MI " if they didn't stop protesting the TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION and embarrassing the company" he was going to move his jobs. We need to demand that the corporate freeloaders pay decent wages with additional hirings and pay their fair share of taxes or leave the country and follow all the jobs they exported to other countries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 05:59 AM
Response to Original message
2. Companies should be required to hire people to clean
up the environmental damage the companies have already done. If companies like BP had to pay for the clean-up of the messes they make, they would welcome more regulation.

Environmental regulations even the playing-field so that irresponsible, dirty companies have to meet the same standards and pay the same costs as companies that are responsible responsible and choose to be clean without regulations.

Companies that care about the health of the public, especially the fetuses and small children, have nothing to fear from environmental regulations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Aug 27th 2014, 08:57 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC