EPA Regs Save Lives and Create Jobs

"Much of the bill is based on the premise that regulatory uncertainty is preventing businesses from creating jobs, yet even Bruce Bartlett, an advisor to Presidents Reagan and the first George Bush, agrees there is no hard evidence to support those claims."

Read more: http://www.thestatecolumn.com/illinois/durbin-republican-jobs-bill-guts-regulations-but-comes-up-empty-on-job-creation/#ixzz1cxZTyCVl

Health and Economy

"In his letter, Cook said one of the primary functions of a government is to ensure that its people enjoy a clean and healthy environment, and responding to the current frenzy of ideology- and profit-motivated demands to severely limit the funding and powers of the Environmental Protection Agency would cripple the agency’s ability fill that role. Instead, Cook called on the Super Committee to target a number of misguided and outdated programs and subsidies that result in environmental damage and increased health risks."

http://www.ewg.org/release/shortchanging-human-health-and-environment-won-t-trim-swollen-deficit

Regulation: Not Such a Big Job Killer

Ways regulation improves industry:
"...companies develop cheaper ways to clean up pollutants..."

"...regulation is often blamed for job losses that occur for different reasons...
As companies develop new technologies to cope with regulatory requirements, some new jobs are created.
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."

"...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
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."

From:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/05/business/economy/a-debate-arises-on-job-creation-vs-environmental-regulation.html

The problem is:
“The environmental regulations are a moving target,”
Industries would be best served if the EPA delivered regulations in a more timely manner.
“...we agree that we need to protect the environment and we need regulations in place to make sure that we all do it right. That’s not the argument that we’re coming up with. We do need regulations that are achievable and that make sense.”

Corporate Support for EPA Regulation

"[Clean air rules] began with President Nixon, when he signed the Clean Air Act in 1970. They were strengthened by President H.W. Bush, after the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were passed by 89 senators and 410 representatives. These laws enable the EPA to establish new limits on pollution whenever science reveals they are necessary."

"Clean Air Act standards generated approximately $1.3 trillion in public health and environmental benefits in 2010 alone for a cost of $50 billion. The ratio of benefits to costs is more than 26 to 1."

"...implementing just one set of standards—CAIR Phase I—since 2003 has created an estimated 200,000 jobs in the air pollution control industry."

From:
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/fbeinecke/gop_repackages_old_attacks_on.html

"Last December, seven CEOs of leading utilities, including PG&E, Exelon, and Constellation, wrote a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal called “We’re Okay with the EPA’s New Air-Quality Regulations.” The authors wrote: The electric sector has known that these rules were coming. Many companies, including ours, have already invested in modern air-pollution control technologies and cleaner and more efficient power plants…Contrary to the claims that the EPA’s agenda will have negative economic consequences, our companies’ experience complying with air quality regulations demonstrates that regulations can yield important economic benefits, including job creation, while maintaining reliability."