Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Study Finds Net Gain From Pollution Rules
The Washington Post ^ | Saturday, September 27, 2003 | Eric Pianin

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 ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: airquality; environment; omb; pollution
Excerpted article.
1 posted on 09/27/2003 6:30:21 PM PDT by JohnSmithee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JohnSmithee
Interesting ... so the Office of Management and Budget publishes a report supporting vast increases in government influence/control ... the same OMB which, during the Clinton presidency promised tax surpluses "as far as the eye could see," and also promised alarming increases in deficit spending under the Bush presidency. Always trust the source.
2 posted on 09/27/2003 6:47:49 PM PDT by Ken522
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnSmithee
"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."

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?

Just wondering.

--Boris

3 posted on 09/27/2003 9:50:48 PM PDT by boris (The deadliest Weapon of Mass Destruction in History is a Leftist With a Word Processor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ken522
Office of Management and Budget is run out of the White House. They report to President Bush.
4 posted on 09/27/2003 10:11:08 PM PDT by Doe Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JohnSmithee; harpseal; sarcasm
A new White House study concludes that environmental regulations are well worth the costs they impose on industry and consumers,

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???

5 posted on 09/29/2003 2:56:58 PM PDT by Willie Green (Go Pat Go!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson