Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Want More New Jobs?; Enforce EPA Regulations!
Topic Started: Nov 15 2011, 01:34 AM (671 Views)
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
ClimateProgress
 
By Stephen Lacey on Nov 14, 2011 at 12:02 pm

Quote:
 
We have to hire plumbers, electricians, painters, folks who do that kind of work when you retrofit a plant. Jobs are created in the process - no question about that.
Mike Morris, CEO, American Electric Power

What happens when the GOP mantra that environmental regulations kill jobs is proven false? In politics, that usually means doubling down on the original false argument.

Even after losing a bid to roll back EPAs cross-state air pollution rule last week, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul vowed to keep fighting federal air pollution standards, saying that he would not "let this administration continue to pass job-killing regulations."

But those regulations aren't killing jobs. And as we've pointed out several times, strong, well-designed environmental regulations have never killed jobs. The entire anti-environmental regulation platform of the Republican party is based on a made up scenario that has somehow trumped reality.

In fact, data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that regulations are having virtually no impact on job losses. In 2010, only 0.3% of job losses occurred because of government regulation, according to the figures.

What about coming EPA regulation of mercury and carbon emissions? Won't that cause a "train wreck" that will kill tens of thousands of jobs? Well, estimates vary on the precise jobs impact. One report from the University of Massachusetts estimates that more than 250,000 jobs will be created through installation of new equipment at existing power plants and construction of new clean energy facilities.

...

It's time to stop the nonsensical claims that strong environmental regulations kill jobs. As Republican candidates continue to campaign on this platform, we need to hold them accountable for their distortions.

AMEN.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
250,000 temporary jobs that last until the retrofit is complete. Compare that Brew to the jobs that will be sent overseas to countries with less stringent regulations.

The United States continues to lead the world in environmental and safety measures, and the end result has been a loss of tens of millions of jobs overseas.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Any statistics to back up your story, Pat?

I would suggest that those jobs are permanent, and if the US gets really good at this sort of thing, it will be good for the US trade balance - forever.

Here's another piece to consider:
Washington Post
 
Another AEP coal plant in nearby Conesville required more than 1,000 temporary workers to build a scrubber for one of its units. The plant then added 40 full-time employees to monitor the scrubber, which doubled the footprint of the unit. The device requires so much machinery it has its own control room.

Ralph Izzo, chief executive of the New Jersey utility PSE&G, said installing scrubbers at two of his company’s coal plants created 1,600 jobs for two years, plus 24 permanent ones.

This has been the story of how industry responds to regulations. Since the founding of the EPA in the 1970′s, aggregate emissions of ozone, particulates, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and lead have come down 63%. The economic impact? A tripling of Gross Domestic Product.

The US Right is trying to rewrite history, all for the benefit of the 1%
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Here's another piece:
Quote:
 
the National Academy of Sciences independently verified the stated benefits of DOE energy research. The ensuing report Energy Research at DOE: Was It Worth It? Energy Efficiency and Fossil Energy Research 1978 to 2000 was a stunning vindication:


… the report examines 17 R&D programs in energy efficiency and 22 programs in fossil energy funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). These programs yielded economic returns of an estimated $40 billion from an investment of $13 billion.

Three energy-efficiency programs, costing approximately $11 million, produced nearly three-quarters of this benefit. Most significant were advances made in compressors for refrigerators and freezers, energy-efficient fluorescent-lighting components called electronic ballasts, and low-emission, or heat-resistant, window glass. Standards and regulations incorporating efficiencies attainable by these new technologies ensured that the technologies would be adopted nationwide, thus dramatically compounding their impact.

The handful of energy technologies cited above have returned about $30 billion on an R&D investment of about $400 million. I defy anybody to identify an independent report from a body as credible as the National Academy showing such a staggering return {from any other source} on investment for US taxpayer dollars.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
An even more devastating quote:
Quote:
 
The fundamental issue of our day [is] climate change…. The people who were opposed to climate change legislation used one of two tactics. They either said, “Well, we don’t believe it’s happening.” Which, of course, is just a bald-faced lie.

Or the second part of the one/two punch is, “We can’t afford to do anything about it because a synonym for the word “green” is “expensive.” But looking forward, electric vehicles will be far cheaper to operate than internal combustion engine vehicles. And solar panels on the roof will provide power more cheaply than taking power from the grid.

Yeah, but who believes a bunch of Greenies out to kill our industry, right?

So Just Who said this?

That’s from David Crane, the CEO of one of America’s’s largest electric utilities. It produces power for some 20 million U.S. households, and over 90% of NRG’s power comes from natural gas and coal. But Crane says the future — the near future — will be different.

So do you believe the Koch brothers, who are spending Billion$ to keep Americans buying oil from countries that don't like you very much and while supressing new green technology, or actual experts trying to prevent China from producing all the new tech, and eating your lunch?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
I'll see if I can come up with some stats related to how many jobs went off shore to avoid environmental regulations and new proposed regulations.

The full time workers needed to monitor and service scrubbers add production costs to the finished product which is passed on in higher prices to the consumer.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Here's one more Pat, then I promise I'll stop:

Quote:
 
Few firms flee the United States to ‘pollution havens’ in poor countries. Environmental costs are generally below 2% of total business costs. Firms that do leave the US generally do so in pursuit of lower labor and health costs, expenditures forming a much higher percentage of their total costs. Economists searching for evidence supporting widespread flight of polluting industries have not found significant effects.

The whole link, with much more to read.
Edited by Brewster, Nov 15 2011, 02:45 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
I support reasonable environmental regulations Brew and always have. Anybody with the misfortune of having to travel to southern California in the 70's would be nuts to not agree with me. But the question in my mind is what is reasonable and what is overkill. Just living in a society is a health risk. You will never get away from environment issues if you choose to work and live in a society.

What I found in googling is job losses extending back into the 70's related to logging, steel manufacturing, chemical manufacturing, and other heavy industrial industries. Good paying jobs.

We live in an era of multi national corporatism where large companies simply choose where it is cost affective to them, not environmentally safe. You know this. Look how many jobs Canadian oil tar provided in Canada,jobs that would not pass muster down here.

When you ask me to provide proof that old and new environmental regulations do not cause the loss of jobs here is unreasonable in a discussion when any American or Canadian should be aware of the literally thousands of news stories over the years on this subject. Go to the Washington coast and ask how many jobs were lost due to environmental regulations. They'll laugh in your face over such an inquiry. Same with mining, energy, or other industries. We sit on coal that cannot be used due to these laws while Chinia has no problem fueling factories with even dirtier coal than we use.

This boils down to jobs Brew. Jobs being lost today. Sure there will be green jobs down the line and temporary jobs for updating factories, but when the multi national companies, those who employ millions of workers choose another country over updating another factory here, we lose.

Canada will probably sell their dirty oil to China because rather than choose to refine and use the tar oil, in country, they choose jobs and profits over pollution...and our tree huggers won't let us do the same.

When threads like this appear Brew, is it because you want to admonish the cleanest environmental economic heavyweight in the world and argue that we should do even more. I'm just curious.

for the record, i oppose any new regulations until the rest of the countries in the world catch up with us, and that includes Canada that trails us by a mile.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Quote:
 
What I found in googling is job losses extending back into the 70's related to logging, steel manufacturing, chemical manufacturing, and other heavy industrial industries. Good paying jobs.
Yes, but how many went overseas due to regulations?

I know that many went overseas because of the high costs of health care, etc. in the US. That is emphasized by the fact that Canada has not has anywhere near the same level of exodus. (I find it ironic that the US Right keeps claiming that they want to add jobs while keeping down the cost of taxation, health care, etc, when the very reforms that will help the most are the ones they oppose the hardest.)

Even worse, the US has not maintained its infrastucture, education standards, etc., to the point that major industries find it is extremely cost intensive to operate in the US.

I'm not sure if the US is really cleaner overall than Canada, but I won't argue too hard. Our record is not a shining example of anything. For every word I post here "admonishing" anybody else, I post ten within Canada.

But calling yourself "the cleanest environmental economic heavyweight in the world" is a real stretch.

The bottom line is, everyone in the world has to pitch in, but the US and Canada are about the worst in the world per capita.

This graph's a few years old, but the situation hasn't changed much - Canada's share would be a bit higher, and maybe China's a little worse now, although per capita they're still way behind us:

Posted Image


But the real story here isn't about "Clean" or "Dirty", it's about jobs, and what's the best investment we can make long term. And Coal and Oil Ain't It!

It's also about the US Right being bamboozled by Koch funded misrepresentations as they try desperately to protect their multi-billion$ in profits.

Clean is good, but cheap energy is better. And when you talk long term, renewables are the cheapest. Better yet, not only do they save money, but they produce good, high paying jobs that can't be shipped overseas.

Quote:
 
The best wind farms in the world are already competitive with coal, gas and nuclear plants. But over the next five years, continued performance improvements and cost reductions will bring the average onshore wind plant in line with cheap natural gas, even without a price on carbon, according analysis from Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

After analyzing the cost curve for wind projects since the mind-1980′s, BNEF researchers showed that the cost of wind-generated electricity has fallen 14% for every doubling of installation capacity. These cost reductions are due to a number of factors: more sophisticated manufacturing, better materials, larger turbines, and more experience with plant operations and maintenance. Those improvements, combined with an oversupply of turbines on the global market, will bring the average cost of wind electricity down another 12% by 2016.

These two changes will drive the cost of wind energy down further, to parity with conventional energy sources. Assuming specific learning rates for these components, we expect wind to become fully competitive with energy produced from combined-cycle gas turbines by 2016 in most regions offering fair wind conditions. That would be the case with wind turbine prices at EUR 0.80m/MW by then. Any increase in the cost of gas, which will consequently raise the cost of energy of gas-fired turbines, would bring forward the timing of grid parity for wind.
Edited by Brewster, Nov 15 2011, 04:07 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
I don't doubt that down the line there will be new jobs created from green industry. Right now is not the time to further disrupt industry. Once the rest of the world catches up, we can take another look at it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis