Union of Concerned Scientists: President Obama Undercuts Science with Smog Standard Delay

[highplainsdem]

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/commentary/president-obama-undercuts-science-smog-0558.html

President Obama Undercuts Science with Smog Standard Delay
Statement by Francesca Grifo, Scientific Integrity Program Director

-snip-

“This delay is shocking. President Obama’s decision will leave us with a rule that flouts the Clean Air Act and ignores science. They've allowed politics to trump science at the expense of the American people’s health. The law requires EPA to update a new standard based solely on the science. Scientific recommendations were finalized five years ago. But when industry objected, the administration accepted the industry’s economic scare tactics at face value.

“This is a dangerous precedent for every science-based public health, safety and environmental protection we enjoy.

“The blame here rests squarely on the White House. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has consistently reaffirmed that the EPA can only consider public health science when setting the standard. Cost considerations are appropriate when it’s time to implement the standard. But the White House decided to go back on its promise, ignore the science and cave to industry pressure.

“Good science is always being refined, but waiting for the next scientific assessment on public health risks from EPA is no excuse for delaying action now. Every delay makes more people sick.”

[gratuitous]

1. And the "costs" don't stand up to scrutiny, either

According to this article:

http://www.grist.org/politics/2011-06-15-epa-bashers-arent-protecting-jobs-theyre-protecting-polluters

But what about the effects on jobs specifically? There will be short-term employment effects, no? EPI's Josh Bivens takes a look at that question in an analysis released yesterday, which homes in on the employment effects of the upcoming toxics rule. He does what too few economic analysts do and takes into account the fact that the economy is currently in a state of excess capacity, with low demand and high unemployment. In that situation, regs that bring investment capital off the sidelines do not necessarily divert it from other productive uses; it's just sitting there, idle.

After balancing the negative (higher utility costs and energy prices) and positive (investment in pollution control sector) employment effects, Bivens concludes, "claims that this regulation destroys jobs are flat wrong: "the jobs-impact of the rule will be modest, but it will be positive."

I'll mention that again: "The jobs impact of the rule will be modest, but it will be positive."

This is a horrible decision, and doesn't even make sense on its own terms.

[highplainsdem]

2. See this Reuters column, too:

http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/breakingviews-obamas-smog-backdown-wont-help-sick-us-economy

With the U.S. creating zero jobs in August, economic scare tactics are bound to register. And America's big emitters -- the coal, oil and chemical industries -- are masters of the art. They have been fighting hard to prevent the EPA from tightening a raft of emissions rules. Dow Chemical <DOW.N>, for instance, has claimed that updated smog rules alone would cost as much as $90 billion. The Edison Electric Institute, speaking for electricity generators, warns that the EPA's full slate of proposals could compel the industry to spend $129 billion on upgrades, force the closure of a fifth of coal generators, and lead to blackouts. Republican critics have branded the new rules job-killers and a brake on business activity and hence the economy.

But dire predictions from affected industries in the past have proved wildly exaggerated -- or just plain wrong. During the Clean Air Act debate 20 years ago, the EEI warned that tightened standards would lift electricity prices by up to 13 percent by around 2009. In fact they fell by some 20 percent as of 2006.

And in 1997 the American Petroleum Institute, an oil industry group, warned that smog rules would wreak economic havoc. Yet regions that might have been affected actually had slightly better job creation rates on average than the nation as a whole in following years, according to a study by the Center for American Progress. Dropping the new rule also undermines generators that have tried to clean up ahead of time, including Exelon <EXC.N> and GenOn Energy <GEN.N>.

Then there are the benefits that would have come with stricter standards, primarily in terms of health. The EPA reckons new emissions regulations could save as much as $100 billion in healthcare costs. Such numbers are also open to question. But the case for significant savings is strong. In giving in to polluters Obama may deflect criticism over red tape -- and the rule could come back into consideration in 2013. But barring possible tiny, short-lived effects, the supposed economic benefits of caving in are a smokescreen for political maneuvering.

[tblue]

3. This + Tar Sands = punching Mother Earth in the face

We got no plan. We are adrift.

Do we have to buy into every GOP argument?

[jwirr]

4. And he undercuts his own HCR & economy - more and more illness from

pollution will end any hope of cutting the cost of health care.

[roguevalley]

5. apparently rich people and their political tools including president

carebear don't breathe air. Oh, wait ...

[saras]

6. Just wait - after privatizing water comes air. *Nice* houses will have airlocks.

You have no intrinsic right to expect some corporation to clean your air for you for free.

[Tesha]

7. The rich have Perri-Aire!