Good News! New Smog Regulations Could Cost 7.3 Million Jobs

posted at 2:15 pm on February 28, 2011 by Jazz Shaw

With a hat tip to Jammie Wearing Fool, we find the AP reporting on a rather inflammatory potential job loss number coming out of a new study on the effects of proposed Obama administration smog regulations.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Industry officials say with confidence that 7.3 million jobs will disappear if the Obama administration goes through with tighter rules to reduce smog. The industry-sponsored researcher who came up with that number isn’t so sure.

“There’s uncertainty around that,” economist Don Norman said of the “shockingly high” job loss number he extrapolated using a study sponsored by the oil and natural gas industry’s American Petroleum Institute and covering just 11 states.

This story actually serves as a cautionary tale from two different directions, and for once I’m inclined to at least partially agree with the AP’s conclusions. Studies concerning things that have happened can be quite conclusive, assuming you’re given enough time to collect and analyze all of the appropriate data. But studies on what may happen in the future should always find the savvy news shopper exercising some restraint.

The models in question are, by the admission of the researcher, all using worst case analysis numbers, so the true figures may be considerably lower. Factor that in with the fact that you’re never going to bat 100% in the prognostication business and you’ll probably find that 7.3 million figure rather hard to hang your hat on. But that doesn’t mean that the general direction of trends is in question.

One would imagine by now that the effects of too much regulation would be well known. And when you start applying environmental standards which carry a direct impact on business without taking that into account, the rule of unintended consequences is in play.

But let’s say that the 7.3 million figure is complete pie in the sky. (Though not a pie any of you would care to eat, I’m sure.) I think I can still agree with Don Norman.

“Even if the numbers are half of that, the number is huge,” he said.

We’re still at the point where any number of jobs going out the door rather than being created is too large of a figure. And that doesn’t look to be changing any time soon.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

good thing that unemployment is really low and we’re cranking out the jobs like crazy…..oh wait!…

ted c on February 28, 2011 at 2:16 PM

Car exhaust fumes will subside remarkedly with $10.00/gal gas. So will the need for highway maintainence. Win-win.

a capella on February 28, 2011 at 2:20 PM

all using worst case analysis numbers

WOW! Ya mean someone is using other than Barry’s ROSY numbers – you know, the one’s that haven’t quite panned out in the last 2 years.

GarandFan on February 28, 2011 at 2:22 PM

Ed, the key point here is that jobs will be lost with the additional regulation. And I would bet that the advantages to these regulations is minimal.

RedSoxNation on February 28, 2011 at 2:24 PM

Car exhaust fumes will subside remarkedly with $10.00/gal gas. So will the need for highway maintainence. Win-win.

a capella on February 28, 2011 at 2:20 PM

Bingo!

catmman on February 28, 2011 at 2:24 PM

Not to worry, gasoline prices cross the $5/gallon mark and pollution will be the least of our worries.

Skandia Recluse on February 28, 2011 at 2:25 PM

Bless their hearts, the Democrats are just doing this for the children.

Of course, the children will all be starving to death because their parents can’t find jobs, but at least they’ll have clean air to breathe.

UltimateBob on February 28, 2011 at 2:25 PM

Ed, the key point here is that jobs will be lost with the additional regulation. And I would bet that the advantages to these regulations is minimal.

I would bet that the advantages to these regulations is are minimal.

RedSoxNation on February 28, 2011 at 2:25 PM

Car exhaust fumes will subside remarkedly with $10.00/gal gas. So will the need for highway maintainence. Win-win.

a capella on February 28, 2011 at 2:20 PM

And when people start cutting back on driving due to the high cost, wait until the gnashing of the pols crying about the resultant drying up of corresponding tax revenue.

catmman on February 28, 2011 at 2:26 PM

Car exhaust fumes will subside remarkedly with $10.00/gal gas. So will the need for highway maintainence. Win-win.

a capella on February 28, 2011 at 2:20 PM

$10/gal gas? Wouldn’t the price of crude have to go up to something like $500/barrel to cause that? I mean, the price of oil is more than just the crude that goes into it.

Count to 10 on February 28, 2011 at 2:27 PM

I’m beginning to think that Pretzeldent Waffle isn’t an economist.

pugwriter on February 28, 2011 at 2:27 PM

You guys need to look at the bright side of this.

Just think of all the new panhandling opportunities at the local high-speed rail stations.

/

cntrlfrk on February 28, 2011 at 2:28 PM

“There’s uncertainty around that,” economist Don Norman said of the “shockingly high” job loss gains number

Kind of like the whole “Saved or Created” fabrication.

pain train on February 28, 2011 at 2:29 PM

Ed Jazz

RedSoxNation on February 28, 2011 at 2:24 PM

pain train on February 28, 2011 at 2:31 PM

Let’s pretend these “it could happen” reports in the news today are both true for the sake of argument.

Here’s how the left treats them:

Losing 700,000 public sector jobs over 10 years by cutting spending = Third Reich v. 2.0

Losing 7.3 million jobs in the private sector by increasing emissions regulations = SUCK IT UP, WINGNUT TEABAGGURZ!

Good Lt on February 28, 2011 at 2:38 PM

And, more than a million jobs would be created if the EPA were disbanded.

Vashta.Nerada on February 28, 2011 at 2:41 PM

they’ll have plenty of time to pursue artistic endeavors…*swoon*
/nancy pelosi

ted c on February 28, 2011 at 2:41 PM

Even 1/7 of that given number is awful, not that the demorats and their eco-freak cohorts give a flying crap. They would gladly eradicate jobs, if not the workers themselves, in order to see their ruinous agenda advanced.

Bishop on February 28, 2011 at 2:42 PM

AP: We question 7.3 million job losses.

AP: Obamacare will be revenue neutral, no doubt about it.

angryed on February 28, 2011 at 2:42 PM

Simply put: Democrats cannot govern. They don’t understand how the real world works.

paul1149 on February 28, 2011 at 2:46 PM

And to offset the high prices on all sorts of things, the minimum wage will have to be increased.

Little Nell on February 28, 2011 at 2:46 PM

Count to 10 on February 28, 2011 at 2:27 PM

Everyone in the chain from wellhead to gas pump will seize the opportunity to take a little more markup and blame the ME. Funny how that works. But, yes, I was exaggerating a bit. I read ernesto’s posts and it rubs off. :)

a capella on February 28, 2011 at 2:54 PM

Every thing a liberal does is evil. If you use that as your working theory, life will be easier.

The only things liberals are proficient at is destruction. They are the destroyers of worlds.

gary4205 on February 28, 2011 at 2:55 PM

Maybe we could stop with all the new regulations for a little while and see how that works out.

A Balrog of Morgoth on February 28, 2011 at 2:56 PM

And to offset the high prices on all sorts of things, the minimum wage will have to be increased.
 
Little Nell on February 28, 2011 at 2:46 PM

 
While the rest of our wages stay the same dollar-wise, but drop value-wise. Win the future!

rogerb on February 28, 2011 at 2:57 PM

Restraint in forecasting? Why? The whole purpose of the regulations is to prevent the oil industry from wiping all life from the face of the planet.
How about a little restraint in the global warming doom forecasting?

redshirt on February 28, 2011 at 2:59 PM

Let’s just take a look at who benefitted and who lost during the 90′s with the moratorium on coal fired power plants due Clinton’s air emissions regulation.

Small foundries owned by a single person or small partnership folded because they could not afford the new regs, mostly to hire an additional person for the paperwork.

Natural gas prices skyrocketed because electric utilities were forced to build gas fired power plants (BTW GE made a killing on sales of gas turbine generators, it’s shops stayed overbooked for a few years). Entire industries were obliterated in Western Canada as local gas producers found higher prices and built pipelines to feed the U.S.

The entire Methanol manufacturing industry in the U.S. was wiped out and all plants either were dismantled and sold to China or sold as scrap. Much of our ammonia and urea (fertilizer) industry suffered the same fate.

These regulations never really hurt the big boys, but instead force the smaller guys to sell or shutdown.

Kermit on February 28, 2011 at 3:00 PM

The more I see this, the more I am beginning to wonder if maybe those Amish with their horse and buggies have had the real solution all along.

pilamaye on February 28, 2011 at 3:01 PM

I hope that there is a country and that Comrade in Chief is out of bribe money for the next election.

rgranger on February 28, 2011 at 3:01 PM

Ed, the key point here is that jobs will be lost with the additional regulation. And I would bet that the advantages to these regulations is minimal.

That may be true, but how does publishing a study with bogus numbers help make that case? It doesn’t. At all.

And maybe the number is half that big, but who can say? The study is dubious at best so trying to extrapolate valid estimates from the corrupt data is pointless.

This is no better than the so-called climate “scientists” using faulty models to generate inflated numbers in their reports and “studies.” If the regulations will kill jobs, let’s use a legit model that produces defensible numbers. This kind of shyte simply damages our cause against the Dems’ over-regulation.

rcpjr on February 28, 2011 at 3:03 PM

… and though it may be a ‘worst case’ scenario, we have found all to often that the ‘worst case’ scenario was, in fact, *NOT* as bad as reality once the math is done at the end.

What were the ‘worst case scenarios’ in terms of projected impact of ethanol? Social Security?

Bah.

Midas on February 28, 2011 at 3:04 PM

Don’t you people understand?

It’s for the choodwen.

SAVE OUR CHOODWEN!

hillbillyjim on February 28, 2011 at 3:15 PM

Car exhaust fumes will subside remarkedly with $10.00/gal gas. So will the need for highway maintainence. Win-win.

a capella on February 28, 2011 at 2:20 PM

So, should we start a pool on what the Feds will tax once their gas revenues dry up?

fossten on February 28, 2011 at 3:23 PM

Extremist
Political
Activists

~~~or~~~

Extralegal
Presidential
Authority

~~~or~~~

Eating
People
Alive

~~~or~~~

Economy
Pushed
Aside

…..

hillbillyjim on February 28, 2011 at 3:24 PM

Ed, the key point here is that jobs will be lost with the additional regulation. And I would bet that the advantages to these regulations is minimal.

RedSoxNation on February 28, 2011 at 2:24 PM

Actually, the stated (goal) advantages will be non-existent. We already know, based on their own admissions, none of this will make one bit of difference to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

We must ask the right questions. This is not about pollution, and even if it was, CO2 isn’t a pollutant.

runawayyyy on February 28, 2011 at 3:59 PM

As our president said “Energy costs will necessarily skyrocket.”

Socialism provides equal poverty for all, except those that are more equal.

The biggest problem with government agencies like the EPA, DHS, etc. — their employees are Zealots.

Dasher on February 28, 2011 at 4:35 PM

Suggested reading:

“Trashing the Planet: How Science Can Help Us Deal With Acid Rain, Depletion of the Ozone, and Nuclear Waste (Among Other Things)” [Paperback]
Dixy Lee Ray (Author), Louis R. Guzzo (Author)

This was a great book, released about 1990. Governor Ray began by recounting how things were when she was a little girl in Washington state. Before the widespread coming of automobiles, when walking down the street meant trying not to step in the horse crap. Look at the bright side, shoveling horse crap is probably what President Obeyme meant when he talked about “shovel ready jobs”. Those of you needing work will be able to join the International Brotherhood of Horse Sh!t Shovelers, a government union. We’ll absorb those 7+ million unemployed in no time.

PS Why don’t we hear about “acid rain” and the “ozone hole” anymore? That used to lead every newscast.

oldleprechaun on February 28, 2011 at 4:45 PM

I would bet that the advantages to these regulations is minimal.

For whom?

MSimon on February 28, 2011 at 5:46 PM

“ozone hole” ?

That would be racist.

MSimon on February 28, 2011 at 5:47 PM

Yeah, but just think of all the union jobs that will be rubbed out!

Dr. ZhivBlago on February 28, 2011 at 6:09 PM

http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2011/02/28/study-green-initiatives-actually-costing-more-jobs-than-they-create/

Study after study. Green initiatives cost jobs.

CWforFreedom on February 28, 2011 at 6:23 PM