Death Of A Talking Point? Regulations Actually Create Jobs

[GoLeft TV]

Great new report from DeSmogBlog - http://desmogblog.com/death-talking-point-regulations-actually-create-jobs

For years, the Republican Party in America has been on a crusade against what they call “job killing regulations.” A quick Google search for the phrase “job killing regulations” returns 368,000 results – many from official Republican Party sources and some others attempting to debunk this talking point.

The phrase “Job killing regulations” has been a consistent battle cry for GOP Congressmembers in their war against workplace safety and environmental protections. True to form, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) echoed this sentiment on Monday with his reference to "job-destroying regulations" in a memo about the Republican plan to further gut the Environmental Protection Agency.

But most often, the perjorative "job-killing regulations" talking point is used to describe the actions of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA.) And it has resonated extremely well among an American public that is currently suffering from a severe lack of jobs. As of July 2011, we have an unemployment rate of 9.1%, resulting in almost 14 million Americans looking, but unable to find, a job. For a populace that desperately wants to work but is unable to do so, scapegoating “regulations” has been a very powerful and effective narrative.

Unfortunately for the Republican Party, these “job killing regulations” are a myth. There is no empirical data to back up their claims, but there is a wealth of information available showing that regulations – all regulations – actually promote job growth and put Americans back to work. A new report by Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) delivers the latest blow to this popular talking point, demonstrating a direct correlation between environmental regulations and job growth. NESCAUM looked at the Northeast and found that by enacting stricter fuel economy standards and pursuing cleaner forms of energy, more Americans would be put back to work.

But even though some of this information has been available to the public for years, many people still believe that any form of environmental protection will come at the expense of American jobs. The reason behind this mass ignorance once again lies with the GOP, which has deployed one of the most powerful echo chambers on the planet, consistently repeating the lie about “job killing regulations” over and over again. Unchallenged in their Fox News and right wing radio echo chambers, Republicans work to convince Americans that they have to choose between protecting the environment or the economy. They are aided by a network of industry front groups funded by polluting companies like ExxonMobil, Koch Industries and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Check out the full report here - http://desmogblog.com/death-talking-point-regulations-actually-create-jobs

[Enrique]

1. companies have to hire people to comply

i've had jobs that wouldn't exist if it weren't for government regulations.

[Cool Logic]

6. "i've had jobs that wouldn't exist if it weren't for government regulations."

Those are the kinds of jobs that cost the People $1.75 Trillion/yr.

[Enrique]

7. by "the People"

you must mean the corporations.

[Cool Logic]

8. Nah...corporations write the "regulations..."

When the market is regulated by the powerful, consumers are not allowed to choose from the best products. Rather, they get to choose the products produced by companies with the best lobbyists.

Or, as is the case with ethanol regulations, we don't have choice; we are forced to buy their products.

[FBaggins]

2. You can't paint "regulations" with such a broad brush...

...claiming either that they necessarily create or destroy jobs.

It depends, of course, on how well written they are and to what extent they serve a valid purpose. Poor regulation can destroy jobs (and even drive entire companies under), proper regulation encourages job growth.

A regulation that keeps one company from monopoly power in a given industry could foster competition, higher wages, lower prices, innovation, etc.

[The2ndWheel]

4. We love monopolistic power

Humanity wouldn't be where we are today if we didn't. It would take a monopoly to have such a regulation in the first place.

[OKIsItJustMe]

3. This information has gone through a few hands

Here’s the study: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ngreene/CFS%20Economic%20Analysis%20Report%20INTERNAL.PDF

…

Executive Summary Introduction

This report summarizes the results of an analysis of potential economic impacts of reducing carbon emissions from transportation fuels in the eleven state northeast and mid-Atlantic region. On a regional basis, the transportation sector accounts for about one-third of all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Nearly 100 percent of the transportation fuel used in the region is imported from outside the eleven states.

The results of the analysis suggest that the transition to lower carbon fuels could provide important energy security, climate change, and economic benefits in the region. For example, electricity, advanced biofuels, and natural gas are low carbon fuels not yet widely used in the region for transportation. A gradual transition to one or more of these fuels would reduce carbon emissions and those of other harmful pollutants, enhance energy independence and reduce vulnerability to price swings in imported petroleum, and create jobs in the region. The primary purpose of this report is to assist states as they evaluate the potential for implementing a regional clean fuels program that could reap these benefits.

One of the policy tools under evaluation is a regional low carbon fuel standard or clean fuels standard (CFS), which is a fuel-neutral, market-based program that would require a reduction in the overall carbon intensity (CI) of the region’s transportation fuels over time. Carbon intensity is a measure of GHGs released throughout a fuel’s full lifecycle, including extraction, production, transport, combustion and indirect effects, per unit of energy produced. In simple terms, the program would work by assigning a CI score for all fuel pathways, calculating the average CI for the applicable pool of fuels at the beginning of the program, and establishing a target average CI value to be achieved by a specified date.

…

4.3.1. CFS Employment Impacts

…

The Biofuels Future stimulates the highest numbers of jobs in year 10, followed by the Electricity and Natural Gas Futures. The Biofuels Future depicts the highest level of low carbon fuel production occurring within the region, which accounts for the high level of jobs in years 5 and 10, at which time new production plants and supporting industries would be fully ramped up.

…

The projected job growth comes because “Biofuels” (naturally) require more labor than petroleum.

[Cool Logic]

5. "...all regulations – actually promote job growth and put Americans back to work. "

That is the kind of naiveté makes my head spin.

It is beyond my realm of comprehension how anyone could believe that they created a 71,684 page tax code and 134,723 pages of fedregs to "help the People."

Many "regulations" have been put in place to protect the interests of those represented by K-Street lobbyists. You see, when you are rich, powerful and connected, you get to write the rules that give you a leg up on the People.

[Enrique]

9. whenever I hear the RWers talking about the # of pages

of legislation, I wonder, why am I supposed to react to that? How would I know how many pages legislation should be? I've never worked in a legislature.

It always struck me as a moronic talking point, aimed at people who aren't expected to think about what they're hearing. And now I'm seeing it on DU!

[Cool Logic]

10. "How would I know how many pages legislation should be?"

More pages = more § & ¶ = more power and control. You don't need 206,407 pages to define a free-market that is governed by supply and demand and judged by logic and reason.

The ethanol example: It is not logical to market a product that consumes more energy during the manufacturing process than it generates when it is used as fuel. Ethanol also generates more CO2 on the front end than it reduces when used a supplement to gasoline. Thus, ethanol would not exist in a true free-market economy.

However, it can and does exist in our 206,407 page anti-free-market economy.

[OKIsItJustMe]

11. I’m not a great fan of corn ethanol, however…

http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/ethanol/balance.html

Ethanol Energy Balance

Ethanol in the United States is mainly produced from the starch in corn grain. Some studies have suggested that corn-based ethanol has a negative energy balance. However, a preponderance of recent studies using updated data about corn production methods demonstrates a positive energy balance for corn ethanol.

…

For more information on the energy balance of ethanol, see the U.S. Department of Energy Biomass Program's http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/ethanol_myths_facts.html">Ethanol Myths and Facts and download the following documents.

…

http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/ethanol/emissions.html

Ethanol Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Using ethanol as a vehicle fuel provides local and global benefits—reducing emissions of harmful pollutants and greenhouse gases.

…

To get a picture of the true greenhouse gas reduction, life-cycle analyses are used to calculate CO2 emissions and uptake at each step of the ethanol and gasoline production and use processes. For ethanol, these steps include growing of the feedstock crops, transporting the feedstock to the production plant, producing the ethanol, distributing it, and burning it in vehicles. For gasoline, crude oil must be extracted from the ground, transported to an oil refinery, refined, distributed, and burned in vehicles.

Studies have shown that, when these entire fuel cycles are considered, using corn-based ethanol instead of gasoline reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 19% to 52%, depending on the source of energy used during ethanol production (see graph below). Using cellulosic ethanol provides an even greater benefit—reducing greenhouse gas emissions by up to 86%. Recent studies have shown the importance of incorporating assumptions about future crop production rates and land use into life-cycle analyses; these factors can affect net greenhouse gas emission calculations substantially.



…

[kristopher]

12. Yes, the free market works extremely well...

...in the places where it is practiced, like Somalia.