The talking points from conservatives and moderates of both parties that stricter government regulation of carbon emissions and other pollutants will be a “job killer” and be a disaster for business interests? Not true, according to a new report
The debate over the authority of the EPA and the federal government to regulate pollutants and carbon emissions in accordance with the Clean Air Act and plans to combat climate change has been raging in Washington and across the country. Republicans and moderates won’t budge from their positions that new rules will harm the economy and stifle job growth. Republicans in Congress have announced plans to gut the Clean Air Act and ban the EPA from regulating emissions that contribute to climate change.
The report on the effects of government rules finds that millions of new jobs could be created in the next five years if new regulations to force energy providers to produce more clean energy and reduce emissions are enacted by the Environmental Protection Agency. And
A report from a group made up of environmental and industry organizations said that 1.5 million new jobs could be created through 2015 if the EPA is allowed to impose new restrictions on pollution and emissions from power plants and utilities. Far from being “job killers,” the regulations would lead to a boom in clean energy jobs as companies replace plants and invest in new technology.
Looming U.S. rules that power utilities face on air pollution could create nearly 1.5 million jobs over the next five years, according to a report.
Engineering, construction and pipefitting are some of the professions that could see a rise in jobs as U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rules push utilities to invest in new capacity and pollution controls, said the report “New Jobs – Cleaner Air”. The report was commissioned by Ceres, a coalition of environmentalists and institutional investors. (To read the report, click r.reuters.com/nyp87r)
Republicans and some Democrats in Congress have slammed the EPA’s looming air rules on utilities as “job killing”, saying they could push older coal plants into early retirement and raise electricity prices.
But the report, produced by researchers at University of Massachusetts Political Economy Research Institute, said investments to comply with the Clean Air Act have been good for the economy. It quoted the Office of Management and Budget, which said in 2003 that every dollar spent on compliance with the act since 1970 has led to $4 to $8 in economic benefits.
“The bottom line: clean air is a worthwhile investment,” said Mindy Lubber, president of Ceres.
The author of the study said that “investment dollars” in clean energy “are creating jobs” and “huge health benefits.”
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s clean air panel, said today’s study only strengthens the case for the new regulations.
“These are American jobs in manufacturing, installing and operating modern pollution control technology and producing clean energy — jobs that come at a crucial time as our nation’s economy continues to recover and grow,” he said in a statement. “Over the last four decades, we’ve made great strides in reducing our nation’s air pollution. But more can be done, and more must be done if America wants to compete in this emerging global clean energy economy.”
Though most of the jobs created by the power plant rules would not be permanent, researchers found that the new rules would lead to a permanent increase in employment in the power sector, said James Heintz, the author of the study.
Jobs would be lost when older power plants are shut down, but the power sector would see a net increase of 4,200 employees, the study concludes. That’s because the new control equipment is more labor-intensive, meaning power plants will need more employees to operate and maintain their fleets, said Heintz, who is PERI’s associate director.
“There’s a lot of rhetoric saying that dollars being spent here are going into a black hole, which is patently untrue,” Foerter said. “These investment dollars are creating jobs, and they’re creating huge health benefits.”
Get rid of the EPA. You DO NOT have a right to clean air or clean water. If you live in area that has polluted air and you don’t like it, then move. If you live in an area that has polluted water and you don’t like it, then buy bottled water.
Corporations should have the right to pollute whatever they want, including your land and water. Because they are the job creators and we need jobs, not our health
Hey, from the way the Republicans are arguing so heavily in favor of repealing EPA policy you’d think it would have some kind of massive benefits for corporations.
Oh, wait a minute….
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Joe Snow, Jerry Rose. Jerry Rose said: A "job killer" Not exactly. A new study finds that millions of jobs could be created if the EPA tightens pollution… http://fb.me/LCZJmUll [...]
Republican foot-draggers will have ample opportunity to find out what the current state of the scientific community is soon as the AAAS (the leading body of American Academic Scientists) will be holding its annual meeting in Washington DC.
How many Republican Congressmen will take time out to inform themselves about the dangers of melting glaciers, droughts, severe storms and other costly climatic shifts? My guess is very few if any. They get their information from the oil companies and stick their fingers in their ears .