Shocking! EPA cost benefit predictions based on “feelings”
posted at 2:10 pm on June 16, 2011 by Jazz Shaw
It can be easy to lose track of all of the federal agencies currently doing end runs around the legislative process with dubious new guidelines and regulations. But one to definitely keep an eye on is the EPA. Their recently unveiled Clean Air Act regulations were advertised by the agency as being expensive, but don’t worry! They’re going to result in two trillion dollars in benefits and an army of new jobs for the “green economy.”
Well, it’s certainly hard to argue with that, isn’t it? The economy is in dire need of a boost of that magnitude and, just as obviously, we definitely need all the new jobs we can get, right? There’s just one little problem with this masterful plan. A recent independent study of the EPA’s cost benefit predictions shows that they are almost entirely vaporware.
In “Assessment of Obama Administration’s Cost-Benefit Analysis of Clean Air Act Regulation,” economist David Montgomery reveals the very large net regulatory benefits touted by EPA rely on apples to orange comparisons, where the vast majority of the benefits have none of the financial reality that the costs do.
“In its Clean Air Act appraisal, EPA substitutes calculated misdirection for solid analysis” explained NTU Executive Vice President Pete Sepp. “Nearly all of EPA’s promised $2 trillion in benefits from existing regulations stem from feelings rather than fiscal improvements.
“Federal regulators arrived at their staggering figures by polling individuals on how much they’d be willing to pay to reduce risks in general, mostly using estimates from studies of occupational risks unrelated to air pollution.”
But the EPA did get one thing right. It’s going to be expensive.
Dr. Montgomery added “while less than 3 percent of the EPA’s purported benefits will show up as additional jobs or real output in the economy, 100 percent of the costs will do so. Even EPA’s own macroeconomic analysis shows that existing air pollution regulations are a net drag on the economy. And EPA’s tally doesn’t even take into account the costs of its pending new ozone standards and regulations on electric utilities over the next decade.”
This type of pie in the sky enthusiasm for creative accounting shouldn’t come as any surprise, as it’s been a hallmark of this administration since day one. Whether it’s the coming explosion of green jobs that simply never happened or sure-fire ways to eliminate coal production which will bankrupt consumers, the laudable goals never seem to match up to the grim realities.
As I’ve stated repeatedly, I’m no fan of coal as a primary energy source, but you simply can’t regulate it out of existence without first coming up with a way to replace all that energy. And the first time a person comes along who can manage that feat in a clean, safe, economically viable way, I’ll be at the front of the line waiting to shake their hand. But we’re nowhere near that point yet. I understand that Congress is often – as my grandfather used to say – about as useful as teats on a boar hog, but in matters such as this we have to keep the legislative branch in the loop. These types of actions can not simply be left to an executive branch entity such as the EPA without oversight. The nation’s teetering economy just isn’t going to survive this type of “help” from Washington.
This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.









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
Green jobs = EPA enforcers?
zmdavid on June 16, 2011 at 2:12 PM
I wish the liberals would stop living in the world not as it is but as they wish it were …..and I really wish they would stop trying to drag the rest of us along with them
Aggie95 on June 16, 2011 at 2:15 PM
That is the entire crux of liberalism though–the quest for a atopia. Without the desire for a consequence free existence that someone else pays for, there is no liberalism.
Kataklysmic on June 16, 2011 at 2:19 PM
*utopia
Kataklysmic on June 16, 2011 at 2:19 PM
I have a feeling Obama is not as smart as Matthews imagines. Not by a long shot. But, that’s just me and my attitudes.
betsyz on June 16, 2011 at 2:20 PM
…and the costs are always higher than they estimated
JC in CA on June 16, 2011 at 2:21 PM
According to the Left, based on the above quote, you’re “anti-science.”
visions on June 16, 2011 at 2:21 PM
The EPA are the AlQada terrorists arm of the Obama Gang. They have been at secret war with every American who uses electricity and food. Their mask is off now.
jimw on June 16, 2011 at 2:23 PM
The EPA blames its anti-coal actions on mercury even as mercury is crammed into American households in compact fluorescent light bulbs.
cthulhu on June 16, 2011 at 2:24 PM
Amen to that, brother!
Subsunk
Subsunk on June 16, 2011 at 2:24 PM
Apples to oranges? No. Apples to five course meals at a ritzy club restaurant, including wine, champagne and cigars.
starboardhelm on June 16, 2011 at 2:27 PM
Everything that Liberals do turn into sh!t and that ain’t just a feelin’, it’s a fact.
esnap on June 16, 2011 at 2:30 PM
The EPA is as dangerous to the future of America, if not more so, as Sharia Jihad or China and that’s disgusting.
Dhuka on June 16, 2011 at 2:32 PM
The economy is going to be run on carbon-free unicorn farts.
The same substance that occupies the minds of those at the EPA.
GarandFan on June 16, 2011 at 2:33 PM
Only a moron would actually believe that increased regulation will increase employment and provide financial benefits.
John Deaux on June 16, 2011 at 2:33 PM
American “feelings” would change if they took into account the lost jobs as US manufacturing becomes even less competitive due to the “feelings” increase in energy costs.
see Spain, once again….
tomg51 on June 16, 2011 at 2:34 PM
Or,
Hey, your feelings cost me my job, fool!
tomg51 on June 16, 2011 at 2:35 PM
Wow, now that takes one back quite a ways…..(of course).
infidel4life on June 16, 2011 at 2:35 PM
Or do it in another country…
reshas1 on June 16, 2011 at 2:36 PM
I just opened our electric bill. This ‘green’ economy’ caused my power bill to almost double since last month.
Thanks, liberals!
///
annoyinglittletwerp on June 16, 2011 at 2:39 PM
Metaphorically appropriate cynical music video comment
Shy Guy on June 16, 2011 at 2:41 PM
And the way to accomplish that, as we all know, is to let the various energy industries compete in the market for dominance. Less economic damage results as better, more efficient fuels replace inferior ones.
Progressives believe in the command economy (central planning) that has been shown over and over not to work. That’s the weak point in China’s “State Capitalism” whaer they have built new modern cities that are ghost towns and a bankrupt state high speed rail that’s about as reliable as a Yugo.
cartooner on June 16, 2011 at 2:43 PM
EPA cost benefit predictions are manipulations of contrived “data”. Just another shell game. However real the costs, they are understated. And the so-called benefits are claptrap.
Defund EPA.
petefrt on June 16, 2011 at 2:44 PM
That’s all they’ve got. Nothing but feelings.
You can’t put a price tag on feelings.
(and when/if it doesn’t work, their backup plan is)
It’s all for the children.
Sir Napsalot on June 16, 2011 at 2:47 PM
Thus the push for increased regulation by the left.
They wish for it to be, therefore they believe it will be. Magical thinking.
iurockhead on June 16, 2011 at 2:48 PM
Conservatism: Live And Let Live
Liberalism: Live Like We Dictate
infidel4life on June 16, 2011 at 2:49 PM
OR:
Conservatism: Believe it when we see it.
Liberalism: See it when we believe it.
iurockhead on June 16, 2011 at 2:51 PM
No, Obama is smarter than Tingles thinks. Obama doesn’t really believe in “two trillion dollars in benefits and an army of new jobs for the “green economy.” He knows it really is what Montgomery’s study says it is. But how far would he get if he acknowledged he was causing this economic destruction intentionally? They have to say something even if they have to manufacture BS.
The progressive world order requires the destruction of capitalism in order for it to become reality. That’s why we hear the Democrat talking point, “We can’t return to the destructive policies of the past that got us here in the first place!” and “See? The free market failed and almost caused a depression that Obama prevented!” When, in fact, the market hasn’t been free in decades, but when it stumbles from the weight of regulations, it’s because it’s free.
cartooner on June 16, 2011 at 2:58 PM
In her first official action, President Palin eliminates the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Education, and the Department of Energy. “Sometimes you just have to know when to hold ‘em, and when to fold ‘em,” she stated.”
sweet….
Roy Rogers on June 16, 2011 at 3:01 PM
The promise of more jobs by this administration is as much a lie as the promise of more jobs from the stimulus, by this administration!
capejasmine on June 16, 2011 at 3:06 PM
I have a feeling that the EPA is vastly more expensive than all the wars ever fought!!!
landlines on June 16, 2011 at 3:08 PM
tomshup on June 16, 2011 at 3:11 PM
EPA = Enemy of Prosperity in America
landlines on June 16, 2011 at 3:13 PM
I have a feeling Obama is not as smart as Matthews imagines. Not by a long shot. But, that’s just me and my attitudes.
betsyz on June 16, 2011 at 2:20 PM
No, Obama is smarter than Tingles thinks. Obama doesn’t really believe in “two trillion dollars in benefits and an army of new jobs for the “green economy.” He knows it really is what Montgomery’s study says it is. But how far would he get if he acknowledged he was causing this economic destruction intentionally? They have to say something even if they have to manufacture BS.
The progressive world order requires the destruction of capitalism in order for it to become reality. That’s why we hear the Democrat talking point, “We can’t return to the destructive policies of the past that got us here in the first place!” and “See? The free market failed and almost caused a depression that Obama prevented!” When, in fact, the market hasn’t been free in decades, but when it stumbles from the weight of regulations, it’s because it’s free.
cartooner on June 16, 2011 at 2:58 PM
Very well done, cartooner!!!
tomshup on June 16, 2011 at 3:14 PM
Am I reading that wrong, or did the EPA basically admit that their new regulations would effectively cause the total cost of all manufacturing and energy to increase by $2 Trillion ?
How is that “growth” ? Am I wrong or are you getting exactly the same products as before, but now you have to pay $2 Trillion more to get them.
That isn’t progress, that is failure.
deadrody on June 16, 2011 at 3:30 PM
It could be coincidence, but I’m already feeling a bit cooler…an early onset of global cooling?
BobMbx on June 16, 2011 at 3:43 PM
The problem is your (well, mine too) definition of progress is vastly different than theirs.
Sir Napsalot on June 16, 2011 at 3:45 PM
Liberalism: The freedom to choose….from anything on this list we’ve prepared for you.
BobMbx on June 16, 2011 at 3:45 PM
The failure of our economy is progress to Progressives.
infidel4life on June 16, 2011 at 3:53 PM
More importantly, that person will be filthy stinking RICH. There are billions of great reasons for companies to work at new energy sources, so they do. But so far, nobody has cracked the problem effectively, and no amount of government “encouragement” will change that.
hawksruleva on June 16, 2011 at 4:02 PM
In fact, I imagine the EPA says so. Lower industrial output leads directly to lessened greenhouse gas emissions. Unless of course termites decide to fart more, in which case all of our emissions work will be overshadowed by termite-fart gasses.
hawksruleva on June 16, 2011 at 4:10 PM
Contingent valuation models are a scandal. Respondents have no incentive to state the tradeoffs accurately. Plus, sometimes preferences are only known to the consumer in the act of choice. Real choice — not how much monopoly money you’d pay for a hypothetical herd of elk.
DrSteve on June 16, 2011 at 4:26 PM
Agenda 21 requires that industrialized nations fail to heal mother earth. Maurice Strong even said so explicitly.
Strong is quoted as saying in 1990, in an interview to WEST magazine.
I’m unemployed as of today thanks to the EPA’s tyranny.
NTWR on June 16, 2011 at 6:42 PM
Sorry to hear that.
rwenger43 on June 16, 2011 at 7:13 PM
Without coal for electricity, most of the world would be in the dark.
And dying an early death.
Bcs without electricity you do not have the comforts of the modern world which allow children to survive accidents & diseases & all of us in general to live longer, happier, more productive lives.
You have but to go to Africa & see what a life without electricity is like.
The hunter gatherer lifestyle is not romantic. It is deadly.
And since environmentalist wackos have demanded the ripping out of dams that provide clean & free elctricity & fight nuke power everyhwere they can which is also clean, + NIMBY idiots, you have what we have.
Badger40 on June 20, 2011 at 1:18 PM
BTW-the EPA & Clean Air & Water act did not ‘save’ anyone or anything.
Bcs what was a problem was already trying to be combatted by local governments & state governments.
It is true that industry can ruin the land & water etc.
But that is only if no one is doing their jobs in the first place as citizens.
Do not advocate your responsibilities for your neighbors & your Republic to the government.
Bcs this is what you get when you do.
Badger40 on June 20, 2011 at 1:20 PM