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!
From LJ’s interview with Moms Clean Air Task Force:
Q: What issues and constraints, political or otherwise, made your job as Administrator particularly challenging?
A; EPA is the only federal agency whose only job is to protect the environment so we can protect human health and the natural environment. Air quality, water quality, climate change, toxics — all those issues are at play. What makes the job hard is the competing voices that are stuck in a narrative that you have to choose between the economy and the environment. It’s important to challenge those notions. They’re old fashioned! Studies prove that $20 – $30 are returned for every $1 spent to clean up the air. We also know that the cost of following rules and regulations is actually much cheaper than EPA’s own estimates. In fact, once there’s certainty in the regulations, the private sector not only can adapt but do it faster and cheaper than was previously estimated. EPA has the ability to cut through the static and bring people back to that fundamental truth. [Emphasis added]
Check out pp. 15-16 of “EPA’s Clean Air Act: Pretending air pollution is worse than it is” for a debunking of EPA cost-benefit analysis.
When the benefits are in question, claim extremely huge results causing anyone who would question that claim to assume that there really are benefits, but that they are exaggerated. It works on those who want it enough. We’ve seen this tactic in advertising – for male “enhancement.”
If it weren’t for the EPA, I’d have to find honest work.
what studies? when and where were these stuies produce? by who? Oh wait, EPA doesn’t need to produce the stiudies to back up there statements even to congress.