Environmental Regulations Benefit Americans!

[Tiberius]

Imagine that! 

 

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/3/6/17077330/trump-regulatory-agenda-omb

 

Even the Trump administration thinks so

 

OMB gathered data and analysis on “major” federal regulations (those with $100 million or more in economic impact) between 2006 and 2016, a period that includes all of Obama’s administration, stopping just short of Trump’s. The final tally, reported in 2001 dollars:

• Aggregate benefits: $219 to $695 billion
• Aggregate costs: $59 to $88 billion

By even the most conservative estimate, the benefits of Obama’s regulations wildly outweighed the costs. 

According to OMB — and to the federal agencies upon whose data OMB mostly relied — the core of the Trumpian case against Obama regulations, arguably the organizing principle of Trump’s administration, is false. 

Environmental regulations have the highest costs and highest benefits

At least since Reagan, conservatives have had particular and growing hostility toward environmental regulations. This has proven a source of great anguish to (older) environmentalists, who lament that such regulations used to be bipartisan. 

But the right-wing turn against environmental rules is no great mystery. The OMB report reveals the core reason: Of all the regulations passed from 2006 to 2016, it is environmental regulations, specifically air pollution regulations, that had both the highest costs and the highest benefits.

[Warren Zevon]

Maybe rolling back regulations without second thought isn't such a good idea after all

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, garybusey said:

Maybe rolling back regulations without second thought isn't such a good idea after all

Unless you are trying to use right wing idiots to get power so you can turn around and take away their health care, clean air and water and fair elections 

[Warren Zevon]

Just now, Tiberius said:

Unless you are trying to use right wing idiots to get power so you can turn around and take away their health care, clean air and water and fair elections 

 

Great post! I might start a thread just for your stashes.

[Nanker]

You two are so beholding to Richard Nixon for creating the EPA then, aren't you.

[TakeYouToTasker]

This is incredibly dumb.

 

Anyone citing "data" which "pinpoints" a nebulous figure somewhere in between $219b and $695b is a useless knob. 

 

Anyone citing a direct knowledge gap that wide as evidentiary should be summarily fired.

 

$219b is closer to negative $100b than it is to $695b, and to make matters worse, doesn't even consider factoring in opportunity cost.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[B-Man]

3 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

This is incredibly dumb.

 

Anyone citing "data" which "pinpoints" a nebulous figure somewhere in between $219b and $695b is a useless knob. 

 

Anyone citing a direct knowledge gap that wide as evidentiary should be summarily fired.

 

$219b is closer to negative $100b than it is to $695b, and to make matters worse, doesn't even consider factoring in opportunity cost.

 

 

 

 

Spoilsport !

 

C'mon.............he started a new thread and everything....................why did you have to "clutter it up" with common sense ??

 

 

 

.

[Azalin]

2 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

Spoilsport !

 

C'mon.............he started a new thread and everything....................why did you have to "clutter it up" with common sense ??

 

 

Obfuscation with facts and details!

[Tiberius]

30 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Spoilsport !

 

C'mon.............he started a new thread and everything....................why did you have to "clutter it up" with common sense ??

 

 

 

.

Nonsense, not common sense. He's basically arguing that there is too much clean air. He is doing his best D.C.-D-Bag impression 

[boyst]

The environmentalists are the !@#$s who allowed Obama through wotus to take over more land in this country than anyone else.

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

The environmentalists are the !@#$s who allowed Obama through wotus to take over more land in this country than anyone else.

More than Lincoln took? 

 

 

[boyst]

11 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

More than Lincoln took? 

 

 

Lincoln's was a war crime

 

Obama's was a theft and inconstitutional.

[DC Tom]

Not responding to threads started by gatorman benefits Americans, too.

[boyst]

2 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

Not responding to threads started by gatorman benefits Americans, too.

You nincompoop. You just did.

 

Why do you hate America?

[/dev/null]

5 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

Not responding to threads started by gatorman benefits Americans, too.

you know who never responded to gatorman posts?  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[B-Man]

1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

This is incredibly dumb.

Anyone citing "data" which "pinpoints" a nebulous figure somewhere in between $219b and $695b is a useless knob. 

Anyone citing a direct knowledge gap that wide as evidentiary should be summarily fired.

$219b is closer to negative $100b than it is to $695b, and to make matters worse, doesn't even consider factoring in opportunity cost.

 

 

 

He's on to you TYTT !

 

Pointing out the obvious flaws in his beloved "narrative confirming article ,

 

is the same as arguing that there is too much clean air.

 

 

 

 

 

[/dev/null]

1 minute ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

 

i just snorted CocaCola out my nose 

[Tiberius]

1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

This is incredibly dumb.

 

Anyone citing "data" which "pinpoints" a nebulous figure somewhere in between $219b and $695b is a useless knob. 

 

Anyone citing a direct knowledge gap that wide as evidentiary should be summarily fired.

 

$219b is closer to negative $100b than it is to $695b, and to make matters worse, doesn't even consider factoring in opportunity cost.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whose opportunity costs?  The victims of air pollution? 

[3rdnlng]

2 hours ago, /dev/null said:

 

i just snorted CocaCola out my nose 

Coke goes in your nose, you idiot.

[billsfan89]

I don't understand the blanket argument against environmental regulations. In a specific case if a regulation is onerous or doesn't make sense fine make the case to gut it. But to think that rules designed to protect the place where we live from being polluted are inherently bad because some giant corporation can't exploit that land for short-term economic gain is beyond my comprehension.