Browner Out As Environmental Czar

[Grizalltheway]

From left to right: Tman, cleets

[kalm]

From left to right: Tman, cleets

(The girl in your avatar needs to hold that duster with both hands.)

[houndawg]

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...

Strong pimp hand!

Don't blame the EPA for your ill-advised land speculations, T, everybody knew 40 years ago that the Auburn Dam was an iffy-at-best proposition.

[Grizalltheway]

From left to right: Tman, cleets

(The girl in your avatar needs to hold that duster with both hands.)

Agreed...but you'll have to ask chris about that.

[D1B]

Tman got his ass kicked so bad he has Cleet's footprints in his shit.

Cleets, you just made my week. Thanks for doing the legwork here.

[houndawg]

Tman got his ass kicked so bad he has Cleet's footprints in his ****.

Cleets, you just made my week. Thanks for doing the legwork here.

Cleets kicked a mudhole in his azz and stomped it dry. The doctors will be asking T: "Jesus man, how many of them were there"?

[mainejeff]

It's amazing how Republican politicians have got their base totally believing that cleaning up and stewarding our environment is responsible for the economic malaise in this country.

You mofos REALLY need to get a clue. Going back to environmental regulations of 40 or 50 years ago is gonna do ZILCH to return us to the economic boom of 40 or 50 years ago. Maybe it'll make you douches happy that our water, air, etc. suck though?......

[D1B]

It's amazing how Republican politicians have got their base totally believing that cleaning up and stewarding our environment is responsible for the economic malaise in this country.

You mofos REALLY need to get a clue. Going back to environmental regulations of 40 or 50 years ago is gonna do ZILCH to return us to the economic boom of 40 or 50 years ago. Maybe it'll make you douches happy that our water, air, etc. suck though?......

They aint stupid, they're greedy. They want all the money, before they die.

[travelinman67]

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...

My bad, there were several links discussing the economic impact of the EPA regs...I grabbed the wrong one. Here's the one I wanted...

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... 6eb54fbc9e.

No points scored, though...

...I punched myself:

[D1B]

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...

My bad, there were several links discussing the economic impact of the EPA regs...I grabbed the wrong one. Here's the one I wanted...

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... 6eb54fbc9e.

No points scored, though...

...I punched myself:

You're still fucked.

[Grizalltheway]

My bad, there were several links discussing the economic impact of the EPA regs...I grabbed the wrong one. Here's the one I wanted...

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... 6eb54fbc9e.

No points scored, though...

...I punched myself:

You're still fucked.

Even the new report you linked, tman, only says that the EPA's policies could potentially threaten hundreds of thousands of jobs. Nowhere near the millions you claimed Browner has already destroyed.

[Chizzang]

You're still fucked.

Even the new report you linked, tman, only says that the EPA's policies could potentially threaten hundreds of thousands of jobs. Nowhere near the millions you claimed Browner has already destroyed.

Dude,
It's not even a "report" it's a rebuttal...And that's all
Its part of the Senate Minority Members / Environment & Public Works Committee response to the restoration of the EPA's re-establishment of Clean Air and Water act

This particular Rebuttal is partly sponsored by FOX News (You can't even make sh!t up that funny)
And it focuses heavily on the MIT commissioned paper by Stephen P. Ryan (we already discussed and that T-man even admitted was lame) which was financed by (guess who) The minority team of the above mentioned Environment and public works...

This is actually Hysterical because the key "paper" is a commissioned response where the hired gun won't actually discredit himself by completely supporting the title page and if you care to read it carefully his report (and the Reports he used from RAND) there is nothing there... I repeat NOTHING - it's all conjecture, hyperbole and concoction - no real evidence or information

The MIT hired gun throws a BIG number out on the front page - then proceeds to back away from it every chance he gets and then the Senate Minority team picks an even lower jobs number and then proceeds to back away from that with the already dismissed report... this is classic "we got nuthin" but a title page

There is no evidence that so much as one job has been lost in these reports.... it's just chatter
There's a lot of "Jobs could be lost" and "might be lost" and if this happens that might happen and "We might see this happen" but there is absolutely nothing even resembling "evidence of actual jobs lost"



Can we move on please... this is just ridiculous

[travelinman67]

Even the new report you linked, tman, only says that the EPA's policies could potentially threaten hundreds of thousands of jobs. Nowhere near the millions you claimed Browner has already destroyed.

Dude,
It's not even a "report" it's a rebuttal...And that's all
Its part of the Senate Minority Members / Environment & Public Works Committee response to the restoration of the EPA's re-establishment of Clean Air and Water act

This particular Rebuttal is partly sponsored by FOX News (You can't even make sh!t up that funny)
And it focuses heavily on the MIT commissioned paper by Stephen P. Ryan (we already discussed and that T-man even admitted was lame) which was financed by (guess who) The minority team of the above mentioned Environment and public works...

This is actually Hysterical because the key "paper" is a commissioned response where the hired gun won't actually discredit himself by completely supporting the title page and if you care to read it carefully his report (and the Reports he used from RAND) there is nothing there... I repeat NOTHING - it's all conjecture, hyperbole and concoction - no real evidence or information

The MIT hired gun throws a BIG number out on the front page - then proceeds to back away from it every chance he gets and then the Senate Minority team picks an even lower jobs number and then proceeds to back away from that with the already dismissed report... this is classic "we got nuthin" but a title page

There is no evidence that so much as one job has been lost in these reports.... it's just chatter
There's a lot of "Jobs could be lost" and "might be lost" and if this happens that might happen and "We might see this happen" but there is absolutely nothing even resembling "evidence of actual jobs lost"



Can we move on please... this is just ridiculous

Cleets, the only thing ridiculous is your refusal to acknowledge the truth. The original Pizer study I cited has been backed up time and again, and further, was supported by further research published in a HEAVILY referenced follow-up by Pizer in 2003. Furthermore, Pizer's work is cited by THE EPA when determining overall costs (direct and indirect) which generally runs in the 2 to 2.5 percent of GDP range. That value reinforces Pizer's original estimates of $150b annually...and most importantly, is derived from datasets compiled from '94 to '98...during Browner's reign at the EPA.
http://www.rff.org/documents/RFF-DP-03-06.pdf

These "clean air" enforcements carried out under Browner's directives have eviserated American industry. Most importantly, the figures cited in Pizer and associated studies do not fully incorporate the "hidden" costs which are grossly underestimated. This IS my area of expertise, having personally written the cost-accounting standards for over 500 companies operating in dozens of industries over the past 15 years. Simply stated, a rule of ten is a good baseline for any accountant attempting to isolate environmental costs within production: For each dollar of direct enforcement expenditure, there is ten dollars in "hidden" expenditure. This is not just my conclusion having reviewed thousands of manufacturer's datasets. White and later Joshi isolated specific industries and came to the same conclusion: downloadable pdf here http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... 7C_WIN5wvQ

To thoughtlessly imply that the environmental enforcement policies of the past 20 years HAVE NOT resulted in the loss ("outsourcing") of millions of U.S. jobs is the epitome of dishonesty or ignorance.

[Appaholic]

My bad, there were several links discussing the economic impact of the EPA regs...I grabbed the wrong one. Here's the one I wanted...

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... 6eb54fbc9e.

No points scored, though...

...I punched myself:

Translation: I just told on myself since any monkey flinging turds can hit a report on the internet that supports my claim / agenda

[D1B]

Dude,
It's not even a "report" it's a rebuttal...And that's all
Its part of the Senate Minority Members / Environment & Public Works Committee response to the restoration of the EPA's re-establishment of Clean Air and Water act

This particular Rebuttal is partly sponsored by FOX News (You can't even make sh!t up that funny)
And it focuses heavily on the MIT commissioned paper by Stephen P. Ryan (we already discussed and that T-man even admitted was lame) which was financed by (guess who) The minority team of the above mentioned Environment and public works...

This is actually Hysterical because the key "paper" is a commissioned response where the hired gun won't actually discredit himself by completely supporting the title page and if you care to read it carefully his report (and the Reports he used from RAND) there is nothing there... I repeat NOTHING - it's all conjecture, hyperbole and concoction - no real evidence or information

The MIT hired gun throws a BIG number out on the front page - then proceeds to back away from it every chance he gets and then the Senate Minority team picks an even lower jobs number and then proceeds to back away from that with the already dismissed report... this is classic "we got nuthin" but a title page

There is no evidence that so much as one job has been lost in these reports.... it's just chatter
There's a lot of "Jobs could be lost" and "might be lost" and if this happens that might happen and "We might see this happen" but there is absolutely nothing even resembling "evidence of actual jobs lost"



Can we move on please... this is just ridiculous

Cleets, the only thing ridiculous is your refusal to acknowledge the truth. The original Pizer study I cited has been backed up time and again, and further, was supported by further research published in a HEAVILY referenced follow-up by Pizer in 2003. Furthermore, Pizer's work is cited by THE EPA when determining overall costs (direct and indirect) which generally runs in the 2 to 2.5 percent of GDP range. That value reinforces Pizer's original estimates of $150b annually...and most importantly, is derived from datasets compiled from '94 to '98...during Browner's reign at the EPA.
http://www.rff.org/documents/RFF-DP-03-06.pdf

These "clean air" enforcements carried out under Browner's directives have eviserated American industry. Most importantly, the figures cited in Pizer and associated studies do not fully incorporate the "hidden" costs which are grossly underestimated. This IS my area of expertise, having personally written the cost-accounting standards for over 500 companies operating in dozens of industries over the past 15 years. Simply stated, a rule of ten is a good baseline for any accountant attempting to isolate environmental costs within production: For each dollar of direct enforcement expenditure, there is ten dollars in "hidden" expenditure. This is not just my conclusion having reviewed thousands of manufacturer's datasets. White and later Joshi isolated specific industries and came to the same conclusion: downloadable pdf here http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... 7C_WIN5wvQ

To thoughtlessly imply that the environmental enforcement policies of the past 20 years HAVE NOT resulted in the loss ("outsourcing") of millions of U.S. jobs is the epitome of dishonesty or ignorance.

Squirming here reading this. Embarrassed for you Tman.

[Bronco]

If it's not green energy she and B.O want the cost to go up and will do anything to achieve their goals.

Both are crooks
--


3 Republicans Say Report on Spill Was Manipulated
New York Times ^ | November 12, 2010 | JOHN M. BRODER

Three Republican senators demanded Friday that the White House explain last-minute editing changes to an Interior Department report on the BP oil spill that falsely implied that a group of independent experts had endorsed a political decision to temporarily halt all deepwater oil drilling.

The senators, members of the Environment and Public Works Committee, called for hearings into the matter, contending that the White House had manipulated science for political ends, a claim Democrats frequently made about the George W. Bush administration.

The Interior Department’s inspector general issued a report this week asserting that officials in the office of Carol M. Browner, the White House coordinator for energy and climate change policy, had changed some wording and moved some sentences in an agency report that ended up misrepresenting the views of the technical experts.

The Interior Department report, issued at the end of May, made two dozen recommendations for improving the safety of offshore drilling and said that until those changes were adopted, all drilling in water deeper than 500 feet should be suspended. It said that the recommendations had been “peer-reviewed” and approved by a panel of outside engineers and oil drilling experts.

Shortly after the report appeared, the technical advisers angrily complained that while they had endorsed a number of the safety recommendations, they had not concurred that a blanket deepwater drilling ban was needed. They said such a ban would punish companies with good safety records and lead to thousands of lost jobs. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar publicly and privately apologized to the scientists for distorting their views.

The moratorium proved highly controversial in the Gulf of Mexico, with oil companies and many local politicians complaining that it was wreaking economic devastation. Mr. Salazar lifted the moratorium in mid-October, six weeks ahead of schedule


(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...

[Chizzang]

Cleets, the only thing ridiculous is your refusal to acknowledge the truth. The original Pizer study I cited has been backed up time and again, and further, was supported by further research published in a HEAVILY referenced follow-up by Pizer in 2003. Furthermore, Pizer's work is cited by THE EPA when determining overall costs (direct and indirect) which generally runs in the 2 to 2.5 percent of GDP range. That value reinforces Pizer's original estimates of $150b annually...and most importantly, is derived from datasets compiled from '94 to '98...during Browner's reign at the EPA.
http://www.rff.org/documents/RFF-DP-03-06.pdf

These "clean air" enforcements carried out under Browner's directives have eviserated American industry. Most importantly, the figures cited in Pizer and associated studies do not fully incorporate the "hidden" costs which are grossly underestimated. This IS my area of expertise, having personally written the cost-accounting standards for over 500 companies operating in dozens of industries over the past 15 years. Simply stated, a rule of ten is a good baseline for any accountant attempting to isolate environmental costs within production: For each dollar of direct enforcement expenditure, there is ten dollars in "hidden" expenditure. This is not just my conclusion having reviewed thousands of manufacturer's datasets. White and later Joshi isolated specific industries and came to the same conclusion: downloadable pdf here http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... 7C_WIN5wvQ

To thoughtlessly imply that the environmental enforcement policies of the past 20 years HAVE NOT resulted in the loss ("outsourcing") of millions of U.S. jobs is the epitome of dishonesty or ignorance.

I'm not implying anything...
I'm saying that the report you originally submitted was "weak" at best and you agreed
Then you provided the Rebuttal paper and it contains NO more information than the original report - in fact it's largely based on the first report you and I both agreed was sludge

That's all I'm saying... I don't know if jobs have been lost or not
but the information you've provided so far shows absolutely nothing other than just talk and conjecture

You might be right T-man
There might be BILLIONS and BILLIONS of jobs lost or dollars wasted or whatever
and I'm anxious to see the evidence - I'm open to it completely - I am prepared to be WOWed by your findings and am completely ready to agree with you...