Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Seriously, though...

...she's singlehandedly responsible for the loss of millions of jobs, and so long as she remained, there will be no economic recovery in the U.S.

Carol Browner to leave White House

First Posted: 01/24/11 09:00 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/2 ... 13451.html

Carol Browner, energy and climate change policy adviser to President Barack Obama, plans to leave her post at the White House in coming weeks, Politico reports.

MSNBC's Savannah Guthrie wrote in a tweet on Monday night that there's no word yet on whether Browner's position "will be filled or eliminated."

Two senior Obama administration officials confirm to HuffPost's Sam Stein that Browner will be leaving her position.

A great start.

Now, Obama needs to dismiss EPA Schutzstaffel Lisa Jackson, Gina McCarthy, and Hugh Kaufman...

...THEN, industry might view Obama's pledges as sincere.

Do you have a link supporting that "millions of jobs" number? Cause the lefties will tell you that 40,000 factories closed during the Bush administrations reign. But I can't find a credible source.

kalm wrote:Do you have a link supporting that "millions of jobs" number? Cause the lefties will tell you that 40,000 factories closed during the Bush administrations reign. But I can't find a credible source.

Go back to your crack pipe, Troll.

travelinman67 wrote:

kalm wrote:Do you have a link supporting that "millions of jobs" number? Cause the lefties will tell you that 40,000 factories closed during the Bush administrations reign. But I can't find a credible source.

Go back to your crack pipe, Troll.

The sad thing is that kalm probably does not smoke crack, which makes his foolishness all the more inexplicable.

Rats leaving the ship before Darrell Issa can start issuing subpoenas.

Gotta love the automated knee-jerk conk response to a perfectly reasonable request for some sort of evidence to back up an outlandish claim.

Grizalltheway wrote:Gotta love the automated knee-jerk conk response to a perfectly reasonable request for some sort of evidence to back up an outlandish claim.

It did seem reasonable. kalm is pretty reasonable in discussions and Tman usually has no problem backing his statements so maybe it was a simple misunderstanding. I don't know shit about it but I know that Tman is pretty fucking up on this shit.

I'll ask...

Tman, is that an estimate or something? I can see how things can get choked out a bit but that seems like a lot. Shit, I don't even know how many jobs have been lost in the past couple of years so maybe it isn't.

Millions of jobs?

I agree with dback, that millions of jobs statement is ludicrous!

There is no way she could have been directly involved in losing millions of jobs, Obama has made sure of that...........

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:Gotta love the automated knee-jerk conk response to a perfectly reasonable request for some sort of evidence to back up an outlandish claim.

It did seem reasonable. kalm is pretty reasonable in discussions and Tman usually has no problem backing his statements so maybe it was a simple misunderstanding. I don't know shit about it but I know that Tman is pretty fucking up on this shit.

I'll ask...

Tman, is that an estimate or something? I can see how things can get choked out a bit but that seems like a lot. Shit, I don't even know how many jobs have been lost in the past couple of years so maybe it isn't.

...always the mediator...

Browner ran the EPA under Clinton, and during her first tenure, made enforcement of Clean Air and Water Act revisions her priority. Her life reads like a bodhisattvas Chomskyist, seeking to destroy western culture and democracy to attain purification (...look it up. A tree hugger socialist lawyer who accesses control of huge govt. and NGO budgets then wages war against industry). With an annual EPA budget between 5 and 10 billion, she was the bull in our nation's economic china shop. Having said that, many studies have supported a cost of environmental regulation estimate of $150 billion (study cited below...remembering this study is over 12 years old, and doesn't factor in aggregated losses due to industry outsourcing resulting from these costs)...

ANNUALLY...

...which you can easily see adds up to well over a TRILLION dollars during her years at the helm (9), not including her 6 as Director of the Audubon Society (plaintiff in hundreds of industry extortion settlements), or heading Florida's EPA before taking her shake-down racket national.


http://www.rff.org/documents/RFF-DP-98-36.pdf



So, having whipped it out...

...prove me wrong.

How many jobs does a couple of trillion destroy?

Worse, how can any insane fuck defend defend this?

Each job loss extends exponentially into housing, education, and most importantly, damage to health. The aggregate effecting national and global economy (yes, global...after this most recent banking industry collapse, global dependency on the U.S. economic health and stability was painfully apparent.)

Yet, maybe a "reasonable" person like Kalm just needs a rational explanation...












...or another bowl full.

travelinman67 wrote:

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote: It did seem reasonable. kalm is pretty reasonable in discussions and Tman usually has no problem backing his statements so maybe it was a simple misunderstanding. I don't know shit about it but I know that Tman is pretty fucking up on this shit.

I'll ask...

Tman, is that an estimate or something? I can see how things can get choked out a bit but that seems like a lot. Shit, I don't even know how many jobs have been lost in the past couple of years so maybe it isn't.

...always the mediator...

Browner ran the EPA under Clinton, and during her first tenure, made enforcement of Clean Air and Water Act revisions her priority. Her life reads like a bodhisattvas Chomskyist, seeking to destroy western culture and democracy to attain purification (...look it up. A tree hugger socialist lawyer who accesses control of huge govt. and NGO budgets then wages war against industry). With an annual EPA budget between 5 and 10 billion, she was the bull in our nation's economic china shop. Having said that, many studies have supported a cost of environmental regulation estimate of $150 billion (study cited below...remembering this study is over 12 years old, and doesn't factor in aggregated losses due to industry outsourcing resulting from these costs)...

ANNUALLY...

...which you can easily see adds up to well over a TRILLION dollars during her years at the helm (9), not including her 6 as Director of the Audubon Society (plaintiff in hundreds of industry extortion settlements), or heading Florida's EPA before taking her shake-down racket national.


http://www.rff.org/documents/RFF-DP-98-36.pdf



So, having whipped it out...

...prove me wrong.

How many jobs does a couple of trillion destroy?

Worse, how can any insane fuck defend defend this?

Each job loss extends exponentially into housing, education, and most importantly, damage to health. The aggregate effecting national and global economy (yes, global...after this most recent banking industry collapse, global dependency on the U.S. economic health and stability was painfully apparent.)

Yet, maybe a "reasonable" person like Kalm just needs a rational explanation...












...or another bowl full.

Sorry, D...

...I don't recall mentioning Catholicism in this thread.

travelinman67 wrote:

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote: It did seem reasonable. kalm is pretty reasonable in discussions and Tman usually has no problem backing his statements so maybe it was a simple misunderstanding. I don't know shit about it but I know that Tman is pretty fucking up on this shit.

I'll ask...

Tman, is that an estimate or something? I can see how things can get choked out a bit but that seems like a lot. Shit, I don't even know how many jobs have been lost in the past couple of years so maybe it isn't.

...always the mediator...

Browner ran the EPA under Clinton, and during her first tenure, made enforcement of Clean Air and Water Act revisions her priority. Her life reads like a bodhisattvas Chomskyist, seeking to destroy western culture and democracy to attain purification (...look it up. A tree hugger socialist lawyer who accesses control of huge govt. and NGO budgets then wages war against industry). With an annual EPA budget between 5 and 10 billion, she was the bull in our nation's economic china shop. Having said that, many studies have supported a cost of environmental regulation estimate of $150 billion (study cited below...remembering this study is over 12 years old, and doesn't factor in aggregated losses due to industry outsourcing resulting from these costs)...

ANNUALLY...

...which you can easily see adds up to well over a TRILLION dollars during her years at the helm (9), not including her 6 as Director of the Audubon Society (plaintiff in hundreds of industry extortion settlements), or heading Florida's EPA before taking her shake-down racket national.


http://www.rff.org/documents/RFF-DP-98-36.pdf



So, having whipped it out...

...prove me wrong.

How many jobs does a couple of trillion destroy?

Worse, how can any insane fuck defend defend this?

Each job loss extends exponentially into housing, education, and most importantly, damage to health. The aggregate effecting national and global economy (yes, global...after this most recent banking industry collapse, global dependency on the U.S. economic health and stability was painfully apparent.)

Yet, maybe a "reasonable" person like Kalm just needs a rational explanation...












...or another bowl full.

Of course a clean environment has no economic value and nothing to do with a higher standard of living.

But thanks for your opinion T.

travelinman67 wrote:Sorry, D...

...I don't recall mentioning Catholicism in this thread.

Resources for the Future! 1998 study Environmental laws and regs were gutted during the Bush Admin and we lost 4 million jobs....

travelinman67 wrote:
Browner ran the EPA under Clinton, and during her first tenure, made enforcement of Clean Air and Water Act revisions her priority. Her life reads like a bodhisattvas Chomskyist, seeking to destroy western culture and democracy to attain purification (...look it up. A tree hugger socialist lawyer who accesses control of huge govt. and NGO budgets then wages war against industry). With an annual EPA budget between 5 and 10 billion, she was the bull in our nation's economic china shop. Having said that, many studies have supported a cost of environmental regulation estimate of $150 billion (study cited below...remembering this study is over 12 years old, and doesn't factor in aggregated losses due to industry outsourcing resulting from these costs)...

ANNUALLY...

...which you can easily see adds up to well over a TRILLION dollars during her years at the helm (9), not including her 6 as Director of the Audubon Society (plaintiff in hundreds of industry extortion settlements), or heading Florida's EPA before taking her shake-down racket national.


http://www.rff.org/documents/RFF-DP-98-36.pdf

Wow... if ever there was "biased opinion" tossed around as fact - we have it right here
I can throw a long run-on sentence of utter unfounded bullsh!t together too (and) make wild assumptions and purport ridiculous conclusions as "THE FACTS" too...

But why..?

Wouldn't it be better if you just said:
Here's my opinion - like it or not...
but pretending to actually have supporting data for completely bogus statements is kind of sad T-man
I mean "we get it" you're angry about Environmental restrictions...

Chizzang wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
Browner ran the EPA under Clinton, and during her first tenure, made enforcement of Clean Air and Water Act revisions her priority. Her life reads like a bodhisattvas Chomskyist, seeking to destroy western culture and democracy to attain purification (...look it up. A tree hugger socialist lawyer who accesses control of huge govt. and NGO budgets then wages war against industry). With an annual EPA budget between 5 and 10 billion, she was the bull in our nation's economic china shop. Having said that, many studies have supported a cost of environmental regulation estimate of $150 billion (study cited below...remembering this study is over 12 years old, and doesn't factor in aggregated losses due to industry outsourcing resulting from these costs)...

ANNUALLY...

...which you can easily see adds up to well over a TRILLION dollars during her years at the helm (9), not including her 6 as Director of the Audubon Society (plaintiff in hundreds of industry extortion settlements), or heading Florida's EPA before taking her shake-down racket national.


http://www.rff.org/documents/RFF-DP-98-36.pdf

Wow... if ever there was "biased opinion" tossed around as fact - we have it right here
I can throw a long run-on sentence of utter unfounded bullsh!t together too (and) make wild assumptions and purport ridiculous conclusions as "THE FACTS" too...

But why..?

Wouldn't it be better if you just said:
Here's my opinion - like it or not...
but pretending to actually have supporting data for completely bogus statements is kind of sad T-man
I mean "we get it" you're angry about Environmental restrictions...

His anger masks simple, unbridled greed. He and the rest of the social darwinists(conks ) want their money now.

travelinman67 wrote:

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote: It did seem reasonable. kalm is pretty reasonable in discussions and Tman usually has no problem backing his statements so maybe it was a simple misunderstanding. I don't know shit about it but I know that Tman is pretty fucking up on this shit.

I'll ask...

Tman, is that an estimate or something? I can see how things can get choked out a bit but that seems like a lot. Shit, I don't even know how many jobs have been lost in the past couple of years so maybe it isn't.

...always the mediator...

Browner ran the EPA under Clinton, and during her first tenure, made enforcement of Clean Air and Water Act revisions her priority. Her life reads like a bodhisattvas Chomskyist, seeking to destroy western culture and democracy to attain purification (...look it up. A tree hugger socialist lawyer who accesses control of huge govt. and NGO budgets then wages war against industry). With an annual EPA budget between 5 and 10 billion, she was the bull in our nation's economic china shop. Having said that, many studies have supported a cost of environmental regulation estimate of $150 billion (study cited below...remembering this study is over 12 years old, and doesn't factor in aggregated losses due to industry outsourcing resulting from these costs)...

ANNUALLY...

...which you can easily see adds up to well over a TRILLION dollars during her years at the helm (9), not including her 6 as Director of the Audubon Society (plaintiff in hundreds of industry extortion settlements), or heading Florida's EPA before taking her shake-down racket national.


http://www.rff.org/documents/RFF-DP-98-36.pdf



So, having whipped it out...

...prove me wrong.

How many jobs does a couple of trillion destroy?

Worse, how can any insane fuck defend defend this?

Each job loss extends exponentially into housing, education, and most importantly, damage to health. The aggregate effecting national and global economy (yes, global...after this most recent banking industry collapse, global dependency on the U.S. economic health and stability was painfully apparent.)

Yet, maybe a "reasonable" person like Kalm just needs a rational explanation...












...or another bowl full.

I saw the claim and as I said I didn't get it. It seems like a lot. So I wanted to see where you were coming from on it. I also mentioned that you keep in tune wth this sort of shit and I am not up on it. I was looking for the simple reasoning behind it...to learn what you were getting at.

I was not trying to mediate shit there slick.

Then you explain what you mean while acting like a dick the entire way through because if I'm asking something and it's the same thing as kalm was asking then I must be trying to pigeonhole you right? If I'm not the enemy or your enemy then I'm your enemy right?

Stick your rolling eys in your ass.

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
...always the mediator...

Browner ran the EPA under Clinton, and during her first tenure, made enforcement of Clean Air and Water Act revisions her priority. Her life reads like a bodhisattvas Chomskyist, seeking to destroy western culture and democracy to attain purification (...look it up. A tree hugger socialist lawyer who accesses control of huge govt. and NGO budgets then wages war against industry). With an annual EPA budget between 5 and 10 billion, she was the bull in our nation's economic china shop. Having said that, many studies have supported a cost of environmental regulation estimate of $150 billion (study cited below...remembering this study is over 12 years old, and doesn't factor in aggregated losses due to industry outsourcing resulting from these costs)...

ANNUALLY...

...which you can easily see adds up to well over a TRILLION dollars during her years at the helm (9), not including her 6 as Director of the Audubon Society (plaintiff in hundreds of industry extortion settlements), or heading Florida's EPA before taking her shake-down racket national.


http://www.rff.org/documents/RFF-DP-98-36.pdf



So, having whipped it out...

...prove me wrong.

How many jobs does a couple of trillion destroy?

Worse, how can any insane fuck defend defend this?

Each job loss extends exponentially into housing, education, and most importantly, damage to health. The aggregate effecting national and global economy (yes, global...after this most recent banking industry collapse, global dependency on the U.S. economic health and stability was painfully apparent.)

Yet, maybe a "reasonable" person like Kalm just needs a rational explanation...












...or another bowl full.

I saw the claim and as I said I didn't get it. It seems like a lot. So I wanted to see where you were coming from on it. I also mentioned that you keep in tune wth this sort of shit and I am not up on it. I was looking for the simple reasoning behind it...to learn what you were getting at.

I was not trying to mediate shit there slick.

Then you explain what you mean while acting like a dick the entire way through because if I'm asking something and it's the same thing as kalm was asking then I must be trying to pigeonhole you right? If I'm not the enemy or your enemy then I'm your enemy right?

Stick your rolling eys in your ass.

travelinman67 wrote:

kalm wrote:Do you have a link supporting that "millions of jobs" number? Cause the lefties will tell you that 40,000 factories closed during the Bush administrations reign. But I can't find a credible source.

Go back to your crack pipe, Troll.

That would be a "no"?

travelinman67 wrote:

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote: It did seem reasonable. kalm is pretty reasonable in discussions and Tman usually has no problem backing his statements so maybe it was a simple misunderstanding. I don't know **** about it but I know that Tman is pretty **** up on this ****.

I'll ask...

Tman, is that an estimate or something? I can see how things can get choked out a bit but that seems like a lot. ****, I don't even know how many jobs have been lost in the past couple of years so maybe it isn't.

...always the mediator...

Browner ran the EPA under Clinton, and during her first tenure, made enforcement of Clean Air and Water Act revisions her priority. Her life reads like a bodhisattvas Chomskyist, seeking to destroy western culture and democracy to attain purification (...look it up. A tree hugger socialist lawyer who accesses control of huge govt. and NGO budgets then wages war against industry). With an annual EPA budget between 5 and 10 billion, she was the bull in our nation's economic china shop. Having said that, many studies have supported a cost of environmental regulation estimate of $150 billion (study cited below...remembering this study is over 12 years old, and doesn't factor in aggregated losses due to industry outsourcing resulting from these costs)...

ANNUALLY...

...which you can easily see adds up to well over a TRILLION dollars during her years at the helm (9), not including her 6 as Director of the Audubon Society (plaintiff in hundreds of industry extortion settlements), or heading Florida's EPA before taking her shake-down racket national.


http://www.rff.org/documents/RFF-DP-98-36.pdf



So, having whipped it out...

...prove me wrong.

How many jobs does a couple of trillion destroy?

Worse, how can any insane **** defend defend this?

Each job loss extends exponentially into housing, education, and most importantly, damage to health. The aggregate effecting national and global economy (yes, global...after this most recent banking industry collapse, global dependency on the U.S. economic health and stability was painfully apparent.)

Yet, maybe a "reasonable" person like Kalm just needs a rational explanation...

...or another bowl full.

The head of the EPA putting clean air and water ahead of T-man's right to sell out to the highest bidder?

Bitch need a strong pimp hand.

Chizzang wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
Browner ran the EPA under Clinton, and during her first tenure, made enforcement of Clean Air and Water Act revisions her priority. Her life reads like a bodhisattvas Chomskyist, seeking to destroy western culture and democracy to attain purification (...look it up. A tree hugger socialist lawyer who accesses control of huge govt. and NGO budgets then wages war against industry). With an annual EPA budget between 5 and 10 billion, she was the bull in our nation's economic china shop. Having said that, many studies have supported a cost of environmental regulation estimate of $150 billion (study cited below...remembering this study is over 12 years old, and doesn't factor in aggregated losses due to industry outsourcing resulting from these costs)...

ANNUALLY...

...which you can easily see adds up to well over a TRILLION dollars during her years at the helm (9), not including her 6 as Director of the Audubon Society (plaintiff in hundreds of industry extortion settlements), or heading Florida's EPA before taking her shake-down racket national.


http://www.rff.org/documents/RFF-DP-98-36.pdf

Wow... if ever there was "biased opinion" tossed around as fact - we have it right here
I can throw a long run-on sentence of utter unfounded bullsh!t together too (and) make wild assumptions and purport ridiculous conclusions as "THE FACTS" too...

But why..?

Wouldn't it be better if you just said:
Here's my opinion - like it or not...
but pretending to actually have supporting data for completely bogus statements is kind of sad T-man
I mean "we get it" you're angry about Environmental restrictions...

Pretending?

Google "Cost of Environmental Regulation" and you'll find numerous studies supporting the Pizer analysis...

...including an 2010 MIT published study focusing on one industry alone which has born between $800m to $3.2b.

http://econ-www.mit.edu/files/1166

And the scope of enforcement is universal. Every person who uses electricity, has a well, heats with bio fuels, expels waste (craps), uses CFL's/fluorescents, incandescents (which will be outlawed in CA by 2014), is carniverous, raises animals for benefit, basically, unless you're capable of surviving solely by grazing on plants (100% consumption as composting is regulated) on your own property and converting all consumed into energy with no waste product, you are subject to regulation by the EPA.

And under the new proposed Carbon regs, you will be subject to annual testing and reporting. Violation of this reg. subjects you to the same penalties as oil & gas, mining, chemical industry, etc.

...btw, here's the list of effected industries/processes effected by the new carbon emissions regulations.

My fave is "Manure Management", which includes virtually EVERY American raising livestock or poultry.

http://www.deq.state.or.us/aq/climate/d ... ummary.pdf

Cleets, I've always been puzzled how someone of your intelligence could swallow the Kool-Aid without a fight. I can understand Kalm, HDawg and the ideologues, but you're too cunning to go down quietely. Put on your wraps and grow a pair...

...since Ursus won't.

travelinman67 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:

Wow... if ever there was "biased opinion" tossed around as fact - we have it right here
I can throw a long run-on sentence of utter unfounded bullsh!t together too (and) make wild assumptions and purport ridiculous conclusions as "THE FACTS" too...

But why..?

Wouldn't it be better if you just said:
Here's my opinion - like it or not...
but pretending to actually have supporting data for completely bogus statements is kind of sad T-man
I mean "we get it" you're angry about Environmental restrictions...

Pretending?

Google "Cost of Environmental Regulation" and you'll find numerous studies supporting the Pizer analysis...

...including an 2010 MIT published study focusing on one industry alone which has born between $800m to $3.2b.

http://econ-www.mit.edu/files/1166

And the scope of enforcement is universal. Every person who uses electricity, has a well, heats with bio fuels, expels waste (craps), uses CFL's/fluorescents, incandescents (which will be outlawed in CA by 2014), is carniverous, raises animals for benefit, basically, unless you're capable of surviving solely by grazing on plants (100% consumption as composting is regulated) on your own property and converting all consumed into energy with no waste product, you are subject to regulation by the EPA.

And under the new proposed Carbon regs, you will be subject to annual testing and reporting. Violation of this reg. subjects you to the same penalties as oil & gas, mining, chemical industry, etc.

...btw, here's the list of effected industries/processes effected by the new carbon emissions regulations.

My fave is "Manure Management", which includes virtually EVERY American raising livestock or poultry.

http://www.deq.state.or.us/aq/climate/d ... ummary.pdf

Cleets, I've always been puzzled how someone of your intelligence could swallow the Kool-Aid without a fight. I can understand Kalm, HDawg and the ideologues, but you're too cunning to go down quietely. Put on your wraps and grow a pair...

...since Ursus won't.

Two questions:

1) Have you actually read the links you post? They are engrossing.

2) Is it still legal for me to go fishing tomorrow. Because I really want to.

travelinman67 wrote:


Pretending?

Google "Cost of Environmental Regulation" and you'll find numerous studies supporting the Pizer analysis...

...including an 2010 MIT published study focusing on one industry alone which has born between $800m to $3.2b.

http://econ-www.mit.edu/files/1166

And the scope of enforcement is universal. Every person who uses electricity, has a well, heats with bio fuels, expels waste (craps), uses CFL's/fluorescents, incandescents (which will be outlawed in CA by 2014), is carniverous, raises animals for benefit, basically, unless you're capable of surviving solely by grazing on plants (100% consumption as composting is regulated) on your own property and converting all consumed into energy with no waste product, you are subject to regulation by the EPA.

Do you read your own quoted reports?
Because in the very study you're quoting they dismiss the $3.2 billion number you show up top as "Clearly having little merit" and then go on to say that the $810M might actually be more like $486M and would reflect the costs if the ENTIRE industry were "starting from scratch today" which renders the entire study as "sketchy"

also the study admits that it does not include or incorporate any (ANY) data on the benefits of the Emissions reductions and the industry created around that as well as various "offsets" that might change the findings..

"This result should be viewed carefully, however, as the reduction in output
also reduces emissions in the short-run. In this sense, the negative consequences
of environmental regulation through restricted competition in the product market are
at least partially (and potentially more than) offset by reductions in emissions and
their resulting welfare improvements"

Dude...
Work with me here a little bit, you're kind of embarrassing yourself

AGAIN: I know you HATE environmental regulations
And see them as destructive to business - but - there is no reason to throw around MIT studies that even the guys paid to come up with findings that support your point of view had to back off and stay relatively neutral...

Chizzang wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:


Pretending?

Google "Cost of Environmental Regulation" and you'll find numerous studies supporting the Pizer analysis...

...including an 2010 MIT published study focusing on one industry alone which has born between $800m to $3.2b.

http://econ-www.mit.edu/files/1166

And the scope of enforcement is universal. Every person who uses electricity, has a well, heats with bio fuels, expels waste (craps), uses CFL's/fluorescents, incandescents (which will be outlawed in CA by 2014), is carniverous, raises animals for benefit, basically, unless you're capable of surviving solely by grazing on plants (100% consumption as composting is regulated) on your own property and converting all consumed into energy with no waste product, you are subject to regulation by the EPA.

Do you read your own quoted reports?
Because in the very study you're quoting they dismiss the $3.2 billion number you show up top as "Clearly having little merit" and then go on to say that the $810M might actually be more like $486M and would reflect the costs if the ENTIRE industry were "starting from scratch today" which renders the entire study as "sketchy"

also the study admits that it does not include or incorporate any (ANY) data on the benefits of the Emissions reductions and the industry created around that as well as various "offsets" that might change the findings..

"This result should be viewed carefully, however, as the reduction in output
also reduces emissions in the short-run. In this sense, the negative consequences
of environmental regulation through restricted competition in the product market are
at least partially (and potentially more than) offset by reductions in emissions and
their resulting welfare improvements"

Dude...
Work with me here a little bit, you're kind of embarrassing yourself

AGAIN: I know you HATE environmental regulations
And see them as destructive to business - but - there is no reason to throw around MIT studies that even the guys paid to come up with findings that support your point of view had to back off and stay relatively neutral...

Chizzang wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:


Pretending?

Google "Cost of Environmental Regulation" and you'll find numerous studies supporting the Pizer analysis...

...including an 2010 MIT published study focusing on one industry alone which has born between $800m to $3.2b.

http://econ-www.mit.edu/files/1166

And the scope of enforcement is universal. Every person who uses electricity, has a well, heats with bio fuels, expels waste (craps), uses CFL's/fluorescents, incandescents (which will be outlawed in CA by 2014), is carniverous, raises animals for benefit, basically, unless you're capable of surviving solely by grazing on plants (100% consumption as composting is regulated) on your own property and converting all consumed into energy with no waste product, you are subject to regulation by the EPA.

Do you read your own quoted reports?
Because in the very study you're quoting they dismiss the $3.2 billion number you show up top as "Clearly having little merit" and then go on to say that the $810M might actually be more like $486M and would reflect the costs if the ENTIRE industry were "starting from scratch today" which renders the entire study as "sketchy"

also the study admits that it does not include or incorporate any (ANY) data on the benefits of the Emissions reductions and the industry created around that as well as various "offsets" that might change the findings..

"This result should be viewed carefully, however, as the reduction in output
also reduces emissions in the short-run. In this sense, the negative consequences
of environmental regulation through restricted competition in the product market are
at least partially (and potentially more than) offset by reductions in emissions and
their resulting welfare improvements"

Dude...
Work with me here a little bit, you're kind of embarrassing yourself

AGAIN: I know you HATE environmental regulations
And see them as destructive to business - but - there is no reason to throw around MIT studies that even the guys paid to come up with findings that support your point of view had to back off and stay relatively neutral...

T-man hates "welfare improvements".