View Full Version : Obama halts controversial EPA regulation
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama on Friday scrapped his administration's controversial plans to tighten smog rules, bowing to the demands of congressional Republicans and some business leaders.
Obama overruled the Environmental Protection Agency — and the unanimous opinion of its independent panel of scientific advisers — and directed administrator Lisa Jackson to withdraw the proposed regulation to reduce concentrations of ground-level ozone, smog's main ingredient. The decision rests in part on reducing regulatory burdens and uncertainty for businesses at a time of rampant uncertainty about an unsteady economy.
The announcement came shortly after a new government report on private sector employment showed that businesses essentially added no new jobs last month — and that the jobless rate remained stuck at a historically high 9.1 percent.
The withdrawal of the proposed regulation marks the latest in a string of retreats by Obama in the face of Republican opposition. Last December, he shelved, at least until the end of 2012, his insistence that Bush-era tax cuts should no longer apply to the wealthy. Earlier this year he avoided a government shutdown by agreeing to Republican demands for budget cuts. And this summer he acceded to more than a $1 trillion in spending reductions, with more to come, as the price for an agreement to raise the nation's debt ceiling.
A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, had muted praise for the White House, saying that withdrawal of the smog regulation was a good first step toward removing obstacles that are blocking business growth.
"But it is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to stopping Washington Democrats' agenda of tax hikes, more government 'stimulus' spending, and increased regulations, which are all making it harder to create more American jobs," Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said.
Whatever people think Obama's motives are, it should be pretty clear that the pukes are getting everything they want from him.
Their voting base may be all about race, but their leaders are all about money and power.
And they could hardly be in a better position than having a "Democratic" president do their bidding.
Peace
[I]WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama on Friday scrapped his administration's controversial plans to tighten smog rules...
Their voting base may be all about race but...
Peace
Ozone layers and race? hunh? Do you ever miss an opportunity to race bait even when the opportunity isn't there?
It's become increasingly apparent that our current administration has used the regulatory environment to achieve things that it cannot get through legislation. The EPA seems to have been tasked with initiating components of the administrations Cap & Trade bill, which was shot down in the Congress, partly due to the cost it would impose on the economy during already difficult times.
I'd like to believe that scaling back on this regulatory intrusion was done for all the right reasons, but unfortunately, it seems to be more of a political ploy designed to bring some of the independents back into the fold for the next election.
If this sort of political gamesmanship achieves it's desired result and President Obama is re-elected in 2012, I'd expect these regulations to be re-imposed the following January.
I think your right, Alan. At least I hope so. When I saw the results of the 2010 election my first reaction was that any chance of any environmental issues being addressed was gone. It is pretty apparent that environment or conservation are not in the right-wing agenda.
Peace
I think your right, Alan. At least I hope so. When I saw the results of the 2010 election my first reaction was that any chance of any environmental issues being addressed was gone. It is pretty apparent that environment or conservation are not in the right-wing agenda.
Peace
I think the "right wing agenda" is to not impose more and more regulatory costs to the economy. The costs of the regulation in question is estimated to be somewhere between $19 and $90 Billion. The EPA still has another $100 Billion or so of costs to business in the pipeline. And that just covers a half dozen or so of the several hundred new regulatory impositions placed on the economy over the last 2 years.
The biggest threat to President Obama right now is the economy. He'll never be re-elected if he continues down the path of imposing extraordinary costs on every single business and worker since businesses will not go out on a limb and add jobs under an environment where future obligations are not known.
He may be learning the hard truth that sometimes the imposition of ideological goals imposes more damage than they are designed to fix.
Edited to add: I recently read that we are already subjected to total regulatory costs of $1.75 trillion annually, enough money for businesses to provide 17.5 million private sector jobs with an average salary of $100,000.
loosechickens
9-2-11, 11:04pm
Faced with a completely obdurate Republican majority House of Representatives, President Obama has few arrows in his quiver to try to stimulate the economy and loosen up companies willingness to add jobs. Because the Republicans will oppose virtually anything he proposes, in their zeal to win in 2012. They have made no secret about the fact that their only real priority is to destroy this President.
Given that, postponing the tightening of these regulations is one of the few things the President can do, unilaterally, to try to stimulate business to provide some jobs.
It's not that these regulations do not NEED to be made, and the scientific panels make it clear that they are necessary, but when the house is on fire, you don't try to make the firemen keep the carpet clean, and right now, the economy is in such bad straits (with every possible assistance by the Republicans for it to stay that way or get worse until the election), his hands are tied to get most things through that Republican House.
Postponement does not mean "scrapped", but only a nod to the fact that right now, creation of jobs trumps even environmental considerations in the short term. Which doesn't change the long term need for such regulation or the fact that when the economy is a bit less fragile, they will be implemented. JMHO
Mangano's Gold
9-3-11, 1:03am
The view from the National Resources Defense Council:
http://tinyurl.com/3rgvw5y
On the broader regulatory note, England's first child labor law limited (to eight hours daily) the number of hours children aged 9-13 could work in a factory.
In the US, Massachusettes had the first child labor law. It required children factory workers (fourteen and under) to attend school at least three months per year. In many US states, child labor laws that applied to even seven and eight year-olds were opposed.
ApatheticNoMore
9-3-11, 2:22am
Postponement does not mean "scrapped", but only a nod to the fact that right now, creation of jobs trumps even environmental considerations in the short term. Which doesn't change the long term need for such regulation or the fact that when the economy is a bit less fragile, they will be implemented.
Well realistically if the job situation won't be normal until 2017 or 2018 (per the White House), then they are effectively "scrapped" from EVER being implemented by the Obama administration (even if he's reelected, he would only be in office until 2016).
According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, it's lack of demand for products that's responsible for companies not hiring workers. Classic Catch-22. People with marginal jobs or no jobs at all aren't going to be the good little consumers a profit-driven economy requires.
From MSNBC, "The EPA earlier estimated the rule would save as much as $100 billion in health costs, and help prevent as many as 12,000 premature deaths from heart and lung complications. EPA chief Lisa Jackson issued her own statement, citing past accomplishments and ending with a curt: "We will revisit the ozone standard, in compliance with the Clean Air Act."
Environmental activists immediately pounced on the move as a retreat by a weakened Obama administration trying to cut deals with Republicans in Congress. And the American Lung Association vowed to fight the move in court."
Another big loss for environmentalists after Obama signed off approval of the pipeline to transfer tar sands oil from Canada to Mexico just a few days ago.
I think the "right wing agenda" is to not impose more and more regulatory costs to the economy. The costs of the regulation in question is estimated to be somewhere between $19 and $90 Billion. The EPA still has another $100 Billion or so of costs to business in the pipeline. And that just covers a half dozen or so of the several hundred new regulatory impositions placed on the economy over the last 2 years.
The biggest threat to President Obama right now is the economy. He'll never be re-elected if he continues down the path of imposing extraordinary costs on every single business and worker since businesses will not go out on a limb and add jobs under an environment where future obligations are not known.
He may be learning the hard truth that sometimes the imposition of ideological goals imposes more damage than they are designed to fix.
Edited to add: I recently read that we are already subjected to total regulatory costs of $1.75 trillion annually, enough money for businesses to provide 17.5 million private sector jobs with an average salary of $100,000.
Alan it amazes me that you continue to drink that Kool-Aid! Impose regulatory costs on the economy? Try allowing business to spew their filth into the air without regard to health, the ecosystem, and those that are unfortunate enough to live with the zone of nastiness. Is there nothing more important than the $ in this country? Maybe you have never been in a state that has the highest cancer rate in the nation or live near a coal-burning power plant that is systematically killing a pecan orchard that has been in a farmers family for 3 generation. Try driving down I-10 south of Houston where you will see row after row of chemical plants for miles and then just a short hop to 4 of the world's largest oil refineries. And you are worried about the cost to business?
Jobs? Of course we want jobs. Mainly because the American middle class has be robbed of the opportunity to work at a local business by the multi-national corporations that control our congress as they spread their tentacles of greed around the planet. And you think this is the kind of world that you would like to leave your children? Really?
Am I disappointed in Obama caving in to the corporatists in the name of jobs - yep. It's not the kind of leadership that we need in this moment of history. We cannot drill our way or capitalize on peoples health as a way to prosperity. Those are just short term solutions that might sound good for election purposes but the problems will remain until we figure out how to deal with this mess that globalization and technology has done to the American worker.
De-regulation is the problem - not the solution.
Peace
Alan it amazes me that you continue to drink that Kool-Aid! Impose regulatory costs on the economy?
Peace
Yes, impose regulatory costs on the economy. Why do you think the President is doing this?
I'll answer for you in case you become confused, it's because he doesn't want to be seen as the person who imposed more regulatory costs on the economy in the midst of a recession.
It sort of makes you wonderd doesn't it? If it's a political move given the right circumstances (recession/election), is it also a political move in good times?
Yes, impose regulatory costs on the economy. Why do you think the President is doing this?
I'll answer for you in case you become confused, it's because he doesn't want to be seen as the person who imposed more regulatory costs on the economy in the midst of a recession.
It sort of makes you wonderd doesn't it? If it's a political move given the right circumstances (recession/election), is it also a political move in good times?
One thing to keep in mind is that often regulatory "costs" are actually restrictions on outsourcing costs. The government has spent huge amounts of money cleaning up private sector messes, rather than the private sector paying the money to prevent or clean up their own messes. Or letting others pay for the health affects of their making profits. I would think there have been a number of situations where those "costly" regulations have had a net effect of saving money overall - but it's very hard to measure.
I don't think making money should be a valid justification for me being able to legally dump my trash on my neighbor's property or dump chemicals that ruin my neighbor's well or burn yard waste 24/7 with the smoke enveloping my neighbor's house. If corporations (I know not all are guilty, but enough) acted the same way there would be no need for regulations in the first place.
It would appear that, according to the EPA (http://www.epa.gov/glo/pdfs/fs20100106ria.pdf), the technologies required to meed the standards in question have not been invented yet. Perhaps another good reason to stop it's implementation.
• The costs of reducing ozone to 0.070 ppm would range from an estimated $19 billion to $25
billion per year in 2020. For a standard of 0.060 ppm, the costs would range from $52 billion
to $90 billion.
o The supplement to the RIA assumes that the proposed standards can be achieved
throughout the U.S. using a mixture of known air pollution control technologies
and unknown, future technologies.
o The annual control technology costs of implementing known controls as part of a
strategy to attain a standard in the proposed range of 0.060 ppm or 0.070 ppm in
2020 would be approximately $3.3 billion to $4.5 billion. EPA used several
statistical methods to provide a range of likely compliance costs for other,
currently unknown technologies that would be needed to attain the proposed
primary standards.
Oh, excellent idea. Let's just stop ALL of those pesky, anti-American emissions controls because we don't have a crystal ball to see the results of current research on new methods. Incredible, typical myopic response from the right.
I think it is pretty amazing that the topic of EPA is about money and not about environment. The EPA was formed in 1970 in an effort to set and enforce standards to safeguard the land, air and water as well as protect human health. Sadly we now have not only businesses fighting to abolish the EPA but voter citizens. It has always been a question of priorities and from my persecutive while jobs and profit are important they are no more important or maybe even less than the protection of our planet and it's inhabitants. As the world's worst environmental citizens the US is clearly lost much of it's respect for Mother Nature in the interest of the almighty dollar.
We have really done a 180 since the first Earth Day in 1970?
Peace
Oh, excellent idea. Let's just stop ALL of those pesky, anti-American emissions controls because we don't have a crystal ball to see the results of current research on new methods. Incredible, typical myopic response from the right.
Then why don't we go all out and have the EPA mandate that the use of fossil fuels be eliminated by, oh let's say 2020. Let's not let our short-sightedness stand in the way of our goals. I'm sure someone, somewhere will come up with a viable alternative between now and then, and if not, well.....
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.