MIchael Bloomberg, Hank Paulson and Tom Steyer write in the WaPo:
The Economist opines:
Chip Knappenberger writes in The Hill:
Why not just ban the concept? There is no such beast as the social cost of carbon.
This is how the EPA plans to cook the books for the cost-benefit analysis of its greenhouse gas regulations.
Jackson’s EPA once asserted that two of its rules — the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and the Mercury Air Toxics Standard — would annually produce benefits of $380 billion — equal to about 2.5% of US GDP!
Duh… poor countries can’t afford to protect the environment.
In some cases, the study concluded, there was no evidence that the agency even attempted to analyze the effect of regulations on employment.
The equivalent of all the wealth generated each year in Virginia’s private-sector economy.
“The war on coal-fired power should be worth the price, and isn’t.” [Charleston Daily Mail]
“More and more, daily decisions are made less by responsible citizens than by nanny-state government, especially powerful, unelected, unaccountable executive branch agencies in Washington. Among the worst is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).” [Washington Times]
Studies show that EPA regulations cost Americans their jobs and health.
“EPA’s Gina McCarthy once predicted that the MATS rule would generate 8,000 to 46,000 jobs. Rather than undertake expensive retrofits, more than two dozen plants simply closed.”
People want real jobs not phantom health benefits.
Why photos of oil-covered wildlife are dangerous.
“If Obama’s goal is to beat Bush in regulation, the math looks better for him than the math for Romney in delegates.”
“Over the first three years of each administration, Obama’s White House created four times as many rules as the Bush administration. This is the regulatory regime that was supposed to bring growth and job creation.”
“The phantom gains and real losses stemming from voodoo environomics are starting to be realized.”
“Mr Obama’s EPA has considered raising the value of cutting the risk of death by cancer on the ground that it is a more horrifying way to die than others.”
That would be imaginary benefits.
Economics consultant Anne Smith dismantles EPA’s benefits analysis for the mercury rule at today’s hearing.
The most expensive rule ever imposed on utilities.
The EPA air chief is caught with her numbers down.
The Regulatory Accountability Act requires agencies to assess the costs and benefits of regulatory alternatives and, in most cases, to adopt the least-costly alternative to achieve the regulatory objectives of Congress.
Obama Consumer Product Safety Commission appointee Robert Adler displays the mentality that ought to make his boss a one-termer.
Do we really need more regulations? Obama regulatory czar Cass Sunstein says a regulatory moratorium would cripple the Executive branch.
“I was startled to learn that the EPA estimates that at least one of its proposed rules will cost our economy as much as $90 billion per year,” writes Speaker John Boehner in a letter today to President Obama.
As our economy perhaps heads into another tailspin, it’s worthwhile contemplating how much economic growth and how many jobs President Obama and his comrades are blocking with the EPA and the rest of the federal, state and local regulatory bureaucracies.
“The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency soft-pedals rigorous analysis showing its policies kill growth and jobs while trumpeting as truth junk analysis portraying burdensome regulations as economically beneficial,” says the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.