Republicans attacked the environmental regulations, arguing that harm the economy and the costs outweigh the benefits. But four decades of data show they are wrong
In recent months, some members of Congress have been a full-scale war against the Environmental Protection Agency. Now it has reached comic dimensions, with three separate bills to prevent the EPA "rule of dust" that never existed.
The show would be really funny if it did not matter. Republicans in Congress and in presidential debates GOP attempt to reduce funding and a shortage of cash from the EPA under the guise of concern for the federal deficit and trying to impede the agency's argument that its rules damage to the economy.
the contrary. We have 40 years of data to demonstrate that a clean environment go hand in hand with strong economic growth.
Harvard Professor Dale W. Jorgenson, one of the deans of macroeconomic models has been perfecting its business model in the U.S. economy for decades, an estimated gross domestic product in 2010 was 1.5 percent higher because of the Clean Air Act of 1970. The protection of children against the lack of air leads to adult workers more productive.
is the moral equivalent of defending child labor laws, saying that keeping children in school will increase their income in adulthood. But even this reductionist argument centered on a narrow definition just dollars and cents, the work to show the benefits of cleaner air.
In general, the benefits of the Clean Air Act of 1970 exceed costs by a factor of 30 to 1. The 1990 Clean Air Act changes related game:. $ 1 investment has led to $ 30 in benefits - less sick and dying workers more productive and healthy environment
In a 2010 analysis of the rules adopted in the previous decade, the nonpartisan Office of Management and Budget estimated benefits costs through various government agencies. The EPA reached its peak with the highest percentage by far, with the benefits of regulation outweigh the costs by an average of more than 10 to 1. If you are concerned about the functioning of free markets, the EPA is the federal agency last to be cut.
None of this is magic. It is something much more prosaic: honest accounting
As any economist's peak professional will tell you, the regulation addresses the issues that markets ignored. For example, ensure that the costs of polluters appear in their own books, rather than increase costs for others - whether those who are left with cleanup costs or expenses of health of people living downstream or in the wind
Those who create the costs to pay for them - the idea is simple logic behind the Clean Air Act and the majority of environmental regulations. Market forces to take into account the real costs of economic activities, more efficient and to innovate. And it makes a great benefit to society, including the increase in GDP in the long run by making us all healthier and more productive.
This, however, is largely a function of the model, which, like many others, is a full employment economy Panglossian, humming at full speed. Any change in this perfect world, by definition, entail costs.
This is clearly not the world we live in our current economy, with record unemployment, will invest to stimulate growth. Of course, the government may pay to dig and fill holes in the ground proverbial. Clearly we need large investments in the modernization of public infrastructure in ruins as roads, railways and bridges. But we should be looking for smart investments that go beyond paying for the work will cease as soon as government money stops flowing. All transition of scale of our energy cleaner, more efficient one is the best example.
Find best price for : --Wagner----Gernot----Clean----Dale--
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น