U.S. Chamber says new EPA rule could cost economy $51 billion a year

[unhappycamper]

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-fi-climate-change-impact-chamber-commerce-study-20140528-story.html#navtype=outfit

U.S. Chamber says new EPA rule could cost economy $51 billion a year
By Don Lee
May 28, 2014

Signaling growing industry opposition to the Obama administration’s forthcoming proposal to curb carbon emissions from power plants, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce warned in a report Wednesday that the climate-change rule could cost the economy tens of billions of dollars in lost investment and millions of jobs.

The Environmental Protection Agency is expected Monday to unveil regulations that would push states to make significant cuts in pollution from coal generators, which account for about 40% of all greenhouse-gas emissions in the country.

Although the size of the proposed reduction has yet to be announced, the chamber’s report estimated that such a rule could result in an average annual drop of $51 billion in economic output and 224,000 fewer jobs every year through 2030, with the Southeast feeling the biggest pinch.

The chamber said the numbers were based on modeling from the economic research firm IHS, using assumptions that the regulation would set a 42% reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2030 from 2005 levels — an aggressive percentage that is close to a target previously cited by President Obama.


--

I suspect two feet of sea level rise will cost the US more than $51B a year..

[Half-Century Man]

1. I suspect that millions of jobs will be created

Forcing companies to comply with the law. The manufacturing of filtration systems, the operation of filtration systems, the maintenance of filtration systems, and the safe disposal of that which was filtered out; all will need human work hours.

To offset the cost to the economy, I suggest all participants in said economy file a class action lawsuit against the current and former corporate officers of said energy companies, the owners of said energy companies, the lobbyists for said energy companies, the politicians aligned with said energy companies, the political parties aligned with said energy companies, and the professional groups who provided distorted science to advance the vested interests of said energy companies. They are the ones responsible for delaying action for so long, making the massive large scale corrections necessary at this time and at this cost.

As far as jobs in the southeast, think of how long it will take to undo all the horrific damage greed has caused. Jobs aplenty.

[drm604]

2. Yes, but the cost of sea level rise would be socialized and shared by everyone,

whereas the cost of controls would be born by those doing the polluting, and we can't have that, can we?

Privatize the profits and socialize the costs. That's how corporations like it.

[Leme]

3. Trying to hide this is a Chamber of Commerce guess ?

It's a guess. Or propaganda. or estimate. Consider the source.

[hatrack]

4. Americans spend $53 billion per year on pets and pet products

http://www.americanpetproducts.org/press_industrytrends.asp

Americans spend $50 billion per year on diets, diet foods and diet beverages:

http://www.alternet.org/story/156011/baby_food_diet_americans_are_spending_$50_billion_a_year_dieting_--_and_we%27re_getting_crazier_by_the_minute

Americans spend about $50 billion per year getting drunk, $45 billion on tobacco, and $49 billion on credit card interest:

http://www.businessinsider.com/biggest-money-wasters-2012-9?op=1

Americans spend $25 billion on lawn care:

http://www.environmentalserviceprovider.com/?p=166

Something tells me that somehow, assuming the US Chamber has it right, we'd struggle through.

[Nihil]

6. Hey! You can't go bringing perspective to this argument!

Someone might realise that the Chamber of Commerce is full of greedy ignorant shitheads
if you keep putting facts like those out there!

[eppur_se_muova]

5. Estimates based on reductions of **UNKNOWN** size are worthless.

How can you predict the effect of reductions when you have no idea how big they will need to be ?