Air quality study finds laws well worth it

[jamesinca]

Air quality study finds laws well worth it
White House report says the benefits of regulations exceed economic cost

Eric Pianin, Washington Post Saturday, September 27, 2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Washington -- A new White House study concludes that environmental regulations are well worth the costs they impose on industry and consumers, resulting in significant public health improvements and other benefits to society. The findings overturn a previous report that officials now say was defective.

The report, issued this month by the Office of Management and Budget, concludes that the health and social benefits of enforcing tough new clean-air regulations during the past decade were five to seven times greater in economic terms than were the costs of compliance. The value of reductions in hospitalization and emergency room visits, premature deaths and lost workdays resulting from improved air quality were estimated between $120 billion and $193 billion from October 1992 to September 2002.

By comparison, industry, states and municipalities spent an estimated $23 billion to $26 billion to retrofit plants and facilities and make other changes to comply with new clean-air standards, which are designed to sharply reduce sulfur dioxide, fine particle emissions and other health-threatening pollutants.

The report provides the most comprehensive federal study ever of the cost and benefits of regulatory decision-making. It has pleasantly surprised some environmentalists, who doubted the Bush administration would champion the benefits of government regulations, and fueled arguments that the White House should continue pushing clean-air standards rather than trying to weaken some.


http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/09/27/MN114910.DTL

[jamesinca]

1. This paragraph says it all:

"I'm sure the true believers in the Bush administration will brand this report as true heresy because it defies the stereotype of burdensome, worthless regulations," Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., said Friday. "They clearly don't understand that the government regulations are there to protect you -- and they work."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Make sure you send Sen. Durbin a nice letter for this honest apprasal of the situation

[priller]

2. I'm amazed they let this out

and that it comes from John Graham, of all people. He was one of those industry favorites, an academic who came out with study after study showing how regulations are overly burdensome. For example, just a quick Google turns up this quote (to the Heritage Foundation, natch):

"Environmental regulation should be depicted as an incredible intervention in the operation of society.”

But now he corrects his own earlier work. Bully for him, but boy am I confused.

[zanana]

3. What am I missing here?

The White House is reporting that environmental regulations are COST EFFICIENT, and that they earlier MADE A MISTAKE? Unh uh. This White House doesn't do things like that without an ulterior motive. I don't trust this. How does this benefit them? Something's up.

[jamesinca]

4. Maybe the Sierra Club became a Bush Pioneer

Maybe they said they would not protest his forest initiatives. Your right something is up.

[snippy]

5. I smell Turd Blossom Rove. Science based on poll numbers.

From a reprint of an article in the July 30, 2003 Wall Street Journal:

Oregon Water Saga Illuminates Rove's Methods With Agencies

. . .

Though Mr. Rove's clout within the administration often is celebrated, this episode offers a rare window into how he works behind the scenes to get things done. One of them is with periodic visits to cabinet departments. Over the past two years Mr. Rove or his top aide, Kenneth Mehlman -- now manager of Mr. Bush's re-election campaign -- have visited nearly every agency to outline White House campaign priorities, review polling data and, on occasion, call attention to tight House, Senate and gubernatorial races that could be affected by regulatory action.

Every administration has used cabinet resources to promote its election interests. But some presidential scholars and former federal and White House officials say the systematic presentation of polling data and campaign strategy goes beyond what Mr. Rove's predecessors have done.

. . .

http://www.pcffa.org/RoveWSJ07-30-03.htm