EPA...food for thought!

[B][I]Michele Bachmann, The EPA, And Environment-Related Idiocy That Never Seems To End[/I][/B]

POSTED BY MICHAEL SILVERSTEIN, WALL STREET COLUMNIST IN AT TMV.
JUL 6TH, 2011 | 3 RESPONSES
I haven’t commented in print on Michele’s Bachmann’s rantings in the past because they seemed unworthy of the effort. One rant from the congresswoman from Minnesota and Republican presidential candidate, however, has been hitting too close to home. Her oft-repeated comment that the EPA is this country’s worst “jobs killer.”

I spent more than a decade of my professional life during the 1980s and 1990s writing about a new environmental economics. It was not based on so-called “sustainability,” the view that one day bad environmental behavior would have negative economic consequences. Rather, it was the readily observable view that in advanced economies making, transporting and marketing goods in environmentally appropriate ways produces better net profits, more jobs, and a strong competitive edge.

I wrote several books on the subject along with scores of articles and Op Eds that appeared in such high profile pubs as The New York Times and Wall Street Journal. I was a regular commentator about this subject on National Public Radio. I taught a course in the new environmental economics at New York University.

It never occurred to me when I moved into other realms in the early 1990s that nearly 20 years later people running for public office, indeed, the highest public office, would still be blathering some version of the hackneyed foolishness that we have to choose between the environment and the economy; that in tough times especially we can’t afford to push people toward better environmental ways of doing business; and as Rep. Bachmann so often opines these days, that government agencies like the EPA that help us transition from the old pollution-based ways to more economically evolved, environmental accommodating ways, are “job killers.”

It’s almost embarrassing to have to point out why Rep. Bachann’s views here are so pernicious as well as foolish. So I’ll just touch on the most obvious points.

When polluters spend to clean up their act, that spending does not involve taking money out behind the factory and burning it. It goes toward paying polluter-cleaner-uppers. It creates jobs in the clean up industry. At worst, its a zero sum that transfers an equal amount from bad polluters to good cleaner uppers. In a larger sense, though, it helps build industries needed to compete in the 21st century world economy.

Noting, as Rep. Backmann and others often do, that EPA rules that keep polluters from hiring people to do things that produce more pollution is a job killer, is like saying that cops who enforce laws against meth and crack peddling are cutting into the jobs these activities most certainly generate. Neither jobs that produce added pollution nor those that foster addiction, however, are the sort of jobs a leading edge economy needs to produce.

One further thing about environmental regulations that should be so obvious it requires no explanation — but tragically still does. It’s the fact that these regs over the years are responsible for more innovation that anything with the possible exception of wars. An industry facing a huge bill for polluting behavior has almost never paid that bill in full. It simply changes, innovates, and ends up with better products and services.

Need an example? The cars we drive today are much, much better than the stinkers that used to be produced in this country, and massive improvements over those produced in the far less environmental friendly old Soviet Bloc. Accommodating environmental imperatives, including the desire of consumers for such imperatives, was a very big factor at work here. Or perhaps Rep. Bachmann and company would prefer to to drive around in their old Yugos and Trabants, which were not produced with any EPA enforcers doing a no-no..

A few leading edge economies like Germany’s are rapidly getting away from making any of those outdated hard choices between the economy and the environment — and are clearly destined to have the best of both. Even China, still addicted to dirty but cheap brown coal for much of its power needs, is making dramatic moves to incentivize solar and other alternative technologies, rather than making the “hard choice” to stick forever with burning long dead fossil remains. In doing so, China is eating our lunch with these huge growth industries.

In this country we seem endlessly locked in an idiotic environment-or-economy paradigm. It’s still deeply embedded in our politics. How terribly, terribly, sad this is. For the present. For the future.

More from this writer at [url]http://blog.wallstreetpoet.com[/url]

Some of the EPA rules are head scratchers.Others while they hurt make sense. Acid rain for example,It is doubtfull that this could occur naturally, but it did and to a lesser extent still does. Maybe there have been climate changes like we are going through now in the distant past. But there is one fact no sane individual can doubt. There are 2 billion more souls on this planet than there were 100 years ago. Man can and does change his envirement, most of the time for the worst. So abolish the EPA, everyone alive 100 years from now will be employed, probably trying to eke out an existance.Sometimes being old has one great benefit, wont need to bear the consequences of fools.

When I was much younger, and involved with scouting, we arranged several tours, one was to USSteel,it was an eye opener. Watched waste water treatment, From raw lake michigan waterm through parts of the plant, and into the purifier, and then the operator opened a spigot, filled his water glass and drank it.There was no city water involved on site. The same with a big oil refinery, once AMOCO, now BP, refinery water cleaner than going back, than coming in. This wasn't done because of corporate heart, it was regluation, some by tje EPA some by the state. Total abolishment of the EPA might not br a disaster, because we know corporate america has its citizens first, then the bottom line , right?

[QUOTE=FlyLie;459053][B][/B]
[B]the hackneyed foolishness that we have to choose between the environment and the economy; that in tough times especially we can’t afford to push people toward better environmental ways of doing business;[/B] [/QUOTE]

Wow, I believe this is what I was trying to say a couple of weeks back. Not sure why people don't believe that we can do things profitably and still protect the environment....oh wait now I remember, it make cost the corporations a .2% profit or something.

[QUOTE=Tim_T;459110]Wow, I believe this is what I was trying to say a couple of weeks back. Not sure why people don't believe that we can do things profitably and still protect the environment....oh wait now I remember, it make cost the corporations a .2% profit or something.[/QUOTE]

If you DON'T think the EPA regulations have anything to do with companies shutting down and moving elsewhere, you're CRAZY.......

You know good and well that companies have moved due to EPA regulations, especially where there are NO regulations.......Like Mexico, India, China, etc, etc.

I can name you a dozen that move SPECIFICALLY due to regulations.

[url]http://savingusmanufacturing.com/blog/general/unintended-consequences-of-u-s-environmental-protection-laws/[/url]

Later,

Geo

yep, figured that was going to come from you,So the EPA has done nothing good at all right? Yes some compants have moved, and some are darn sorry now that they did.When thier investments in research are copied, and sold from under them.When some of those great american companys would gladly come back, if some sucker state would build them a utopia.

[QUOTE=kygorski;459125]yep, figured that was going to come from you,So the EPA has done nothing good at all right? Yes some compants have moved, and some are darn sorry now that they did.When thier investments in research are copied, and sold from under them.When some of those great american companys would gladly come back, if some sucker state would build them a utopia.[/QUOTE]

Care to link some details about what you're talking about.......

Here is a link that kind of supports your claim.........

[url]http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-08-06-manufacturing04_CV_N.htm[/url]

NICE to see it working that way, but I still think there are a ton that left due to regulation and will say OUT until the regulations are changed.

I remember all to well when the automotive industries, their supply base and many other US manufactures went south of the border and it wasn't the EPA that ran them out. They packed up and did it on their own chasing the cheap labor $ in Mexico. Then in just a few years, they discovered the CHEAPER labor $ overseas, started packing their bags and and away they went again. Or was it Mexico's EPA organization that drove them out?

[QUOTE=GeoFisher;459123]If you DON'T think the EPA regulations have anything to do with companies shutting down and moving elsewhere, you're CRAZY.......

You know good and well that companies have moved due to EPA regulations, especially where there are NO regulations.......Like Mexico, India, China, etc, etc.

I can name you a dozen that move SPECIFICALLY due to regulations.

[URL]http://savingusmanufacturing.com/blog/general/unintended-consequences-of-u-s-environmental-protection-laws/[/URL]

Later,

Geo[/QUOTE]

Where did I saw companies didn't move because of EPA regulations?

Most move because of cheap labor, but the EPA makes a handy excuse.

[QUOTE=Tim_T;459187]Where did I saw companies didn't move because of EPA regulations?

Most move because of cheap labor, but the EPA makes a handy excuse.[/QUOTE]

They move because of both.............

The EPA has done some good things for the environment which is a good thing but like most government agencies and unions all the good things they did became law and now they are trying to prove they are still needed. Obama is using the EPA to circumvent the legislation by EPA regulations i.e. cap and trade and a host of other regulations on which there is no scientific evidence to justify the regulation.

If you think the EPA does not affect businesses or job creation then you probably have never owned a business. In Illinois it takes at least three years to get an air permit before you can start or expand a business thanks to the IEPA.

Why have we not built a NUKE plant in 30 years.......EPA
Why have we not built a Refinery in 30 years........EPA
Why do we not drill OIL we have in proven reserves.......EPA
Why do we not continue in ANWAR..........EPA

I'm sure I could create a list 100 deep.

Later,

Geo