Skip to comments.Study Finds Net Gain From Pollution Rules
Posted on 09/27/2003 6:30:20 PM PDT by JohnSmithee
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 complying with the rules.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
An interesting question now arises: at what point--if at any point--do "tough clean air regulations" become onerous and overcostly? Another way: where is the cost-benefit break-even for environmental regulations?
Al Gore once committed the howler of stating that a flood had caused a tremedous economic upturn (just think of the builders, earthmoving businesses, lumber suppliers...) in a region declared a disaster area. Economists showed long ago that no natural disaster can have a positive overall economic impact (if they could, let's just bust up the whole country and rebuild it; we'll all be rich!)
So is there any degree of environmental meddling which these boffins will agree is economically harmful?
Our nation's industries are all shutting down and moving offshore and the #%$#%@! White House thinks that's worthwhile???
Good grief. And these idiots were supposed to be "different" than Algore???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.