Obama is Learning!

Learning? Or pandering? ...to his corporate interests in order to get re-elected? Obama's a spineless, weak-@$$, follower.


http://www.truth-out.org/epa-phantom-menace/1314716190
The EPA: A Phantom Menace
Environmental regulations are not “job-killers” after all.
Tuesday 30 August 2011
by: Heidi Garrett-Peltier, Dollars and Sense

In fact, the bulk of the evidence shows that environmental regulations do not hinder economic growth or employment and may actually stimulate both.

The allegation that environmental regulation is a job-killer is based on a mischaracterization of costs, both by firms and by economists. Firms often frame spending on environmental controls or energy-efficient machinery as a pure cost—wasted spending that reduces profitability. But such expenses should instead be seen as investments that enhance productivity and in turn promote economic development. Not only can these investments lead to lower costs for energy use and waste disposal, they may also direct innovations in the production process itself that could increase the firm’s long-run profits. This is the Porter Hypothesis, named after Harvard Business School professor Michael Porter. According to studies conducted by Porter, properly and flexibly designed environmental regulation can trigger innovation that partly or completely offsets the costs of complying with the regulation.

The positive aspects of environmental regulation are overlooked not only by firms, but also by economists who model the costs of compliance without including its widespread benefits. These include reduced mortality, fewer sick days for workers and school children, reduced health-care costs, increased biodiversity, and mitigation of climate change. But most mainstream models leave these benefits out of their calculations. The Environmental Protection Agency, which recently released a study of the impacts of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020, compared the effects of a “cost-only” model with those of a more complete model. In the version which only incorporated the costs of compliance, both GDP and overall economic welfare were expected to decline by 2020 due to Clean Air Act regulations. However, once the costs of compliance were coupled with the benefits, the model showed that both GDP and economic welfare would increase over time, and that by 2020 the economic benefits would outweigh the costs. Likewise, the Office of Management and Budget found that to date the benefits of the law have far exceeded the cost, with an economic return of between $4 and $8 for every $1 invested in compliance.

By framing investments as wasted costs and relying on incomplete economic models, polluting industries have consistently tried to fight environmental standards. It’s time to change the terms of the debate. We need to move beyond fear-mongering about the costs and start capturing the benefits.

Yet again, our politicians thinking short-term and costing us taxpayers more in the long-run just so they can keep getting re-elected. Don't applaud the corruption and short-sightedness yet again, please.

How does it make it worse if regulations DON'T harm job growth, and actually saves money in health care costs, less time lost on the job due to pollution-induced illness, increased demand for products/services to comply with standards, etc? I'm not trying to be obstinate here, but get you to consider that the assumptions that have been made, and continue to be parroted that "regulations cost jobs and the economy money", are based on false assumptions. The problem is that it's impossible to place a value on quality of life, or directly measure cost/benefit ratio of any one regulation - but taken in the big picture, the statements in the article I cited make a lot of sense. All I ask is that you consider them open-mindedly.

The Viking wrote:

CriticalBill wrote: Looks like Obama is starting to figure out how to preserve the precious jobs we have left by pulling back on the proposed new EPA smog standards. :thumbsup: Keep up the good work!

President Obama abruptly pulled back proposed new national smog standards Friday morning, overruling the Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts to compel states and communities nationwide to reduce local air pollution in the coming years or face federal penalties.

The move represented a win for the business community, which had lobbied to postpone new restrictions on ground-level ozone—known as smog—until 2013 in light of the current economic downturn.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... story.html

No time for debating on this topic but you are right. He is finally listening to the Republicans and people who employ on a few more things. The only things that he has support for and has been doing OK with are the campaign promises that he went back on against the Dems and started listening to the Republicans. He has the highest marks or foreign affairs and the wars and fighting terrorism as he realized that everything he ran against and what the republicans were saying was right. Troop surge. Guantanamo. Not holding terrorist tirals in our civilian courts. He is smart to listen to us. Good for him. :thumbsup:

If you think for one minute that he's seriously listening to Republicans, rather than his political advisors who tell him whom to keep happy for re-election (ie corporate interests), sorry but you're deluding yourself. He has no incentive to listen to the opposition, so why would he? He's merely proving that he's like every other politician - self-interest rules the day over the greater good.

And considering that a majority of Republicans have been wrong on this topic, it's be dumb of him to cave in now - nothing he says that falls in line with their position will make a damn bit of difference, for the economy or the environment, and will only prove further to those who voted for him that he's not the leader we were hoping for and he will lose the remainder of his support.

http://www.desmogblog.com/death-talking ... reate-jobs
Death Of A Talking Point? Regulations Actually Create Jobs
30 August 11

For years, the Republican Party in America has been on a crusade against what they call “job killing regulations.” A quick Google search for the phrase “job killing regulations” returns 368,000 results – many from official Republican Party sources and some others attempting to debunk this talking point.

The phrase “Job killing regulations” has been a consistent battle cry for GOP Congressmembers in their war against workplace safety and environmental protections. True to form, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) echoed this sentiment on Monday with his reference to "job-destroying regulations" in a memo about the Republican plan to further gut the Environmental Protection Agency.

Unfortunately for the Republican Party, these “job killing regulations” are a myth. There is no empirical data to back up their claims, but there is a wealth of information available showing that regulations – all regulations – actually promote job growth and put Americans back to work. A new report by Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) delivers the latest blow to this popular talking point, demonstrating a direct correlation between environmental regulations and job growth. NESCAUM looked at the Northeast and found that by enacting stricter fuel economy standards and pursuing cleaner forms of energy, more Americans would be put back to work.

From the NESCAUM study: http://www.nescaum.org/activities/major-reports

Employment increases by 9,490 to 50,700 jobs.

Gross regional product, a measure of the states’ economic output, increases by 2.1 billion to 4.9 billion.

Household disposable income increases by 1 billion to 3.3 billion.

Gasoline and diesel demand drops 12 to 29 percent.

Carbon pollution from transportation is cut by 5 to 9 percent.

And this is just for eleven states in the Northeast. A similar trend has been verified in California , where the standards set forth by NESCAUM are already in place.

Last year, while Senate Democrats worked to pass sweeping environmental protection legislation, reports showed that the proposed efforts to protect the environment and invest in green technologies would have provided a boost to the economy by creating several hundred thousand much-needed jobs for out of work Americans.

But even though some of this information has been available to the public for years, many people still believe that any form of environmental protection will come at the expense of American jobs.

neptunechimney wrote:

Science Chic wrote: Learning? Or pandering? ...to his corporate interests in order to get re-elected? Obama's a spineless, weak-@$$, follower.


http://www.truth-out.org/epa-phantom-menace/1314716190
The EPA: A Phantom Menace
Environmental regulations are not “job-killers” after all.

Truthout.org, please.

Yes, thank you. Please I'd appreciate if you would detail your issues with them, as I've not found a more balanced news source - you don't get any more independent that a non-profit that doesn't even accept advertising money (and they regularly slam Obama, like here ). I'm not saying that every story should be accepted as gospel, but certainly their ideas and information bear consideration and merit.

http://www.truth-out.org/about
Our Mission
Truthout provides an independent platform for in-depth investigative reporting and critical analysis, to reveal systemic injustice and offer transformative ideas to strengthen democracy.

Our Organization
Truthout is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization dedicated to providing independent news and commentary on a daily basis. In order to remain free of bias and adhere to high editorial standards, we accept no advertising or corporate backing. Instead, we depend on our readers to support our work. All donations to Truthout are tax-deductible.