Skip to main content

Despite the way Republicans have pounded the phrase "job-killing regulations" into the public consciousness, "job-creating regulations" would be more accurate, as Farron Cousins details at DeSmogBlog:
A new report by Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) delivers the latest blow to this popular talking point, demonstrating a direct correlation between environmental regulations and job growth. NESCAUM looked at the Northeast and found that by enacting stricter fuel economy standards and pursuing cleaner forms of energy, more Americans would be put back to work.

From the NESCAUM study:
Employment increases by 9,490 to 50,700 jobs.

Gross regional product, a measure of the states’ economic output, increases by 2.1 billion to 4.9 billion.  

Household disposable income increases by 1 billion to 3.3 billion.  

Gasoline and diesel demand drops 12 to 29 percent.  

Carbon pollution from transportation is cut by 5 to 9 percent.  

And this is just for eleven states in the Northeast.  A similar trend has been verified in California, where the standards set forth by NESCAUM are already in place.  

But in the "Republicans Against Science" age, one study is certainly not enough to undo the damage that this “job killing regulation” GOP talking point has done to America, even when there are numerous other studies to back it up.  Increased fuel economy standards already led to the creation of more than 155,000 U.S. jobs, according to the United Auto Workers union.

Last year, while Senate Democrats worked to pass sweeping environmental protection legislation, reports showed that the proposed efforts to protect the environment and invest in green technologies would have provided a boost to the economy by creating several hundred thousand much-needed jobs for out of work Americans.

The thing of it is, a move to a clean energy economy or to any of a number of safer, better practices in other areas would create jobs, but those are potential jobs. Meanwhile, corporations and politicians that want to keep doing the same old thing point to existing jobs and claim (rightly or wrongly) that these jobs are threatened by increased regulation, with no word of the jobs that will be created in new fields. For instance, a move away from oil would cut jobs currently involved in oil; it's just that it would also create jobs in other areas, like wind or solar. In fact, as Think Progress recently pointed out, the United States is a $1.8 billion net exporter of solar products. That involves jobs. But since jobs aren't what oil companies or politicians like Michele Bachmann actually care about, they'll just keep using the false "job killing" talking point and hoping no one notices how many jobs there could be in doing things more responsibly.

Originally posted to Daily Kos Labor on Tue Aug 30, 2011 at 09:30 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  No they don't. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shoeless, HeyMikey

    Yes They Do!.

    No you don't.

    Yes They Do!.

     No you don't.

    Yes They Do!.

     No you don't.

    Yes They Do!.

     No you don't.

    Yes They Do!.

     No you don't

    Oh look, this isn't an argument.

    Yes it is.

    No it isn't. It's just contradiction.

    No it isn't.

    It is!

    It is not.

    An argument isn't just contradiction.

    It can be.

    No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

    No it isn't.

    There is no argument here to be had; just won side repeating "no it isn't".

    $5 please, move along.

    Having Hope and using action to give people hope are different things. Make a difference for someone.

    by Chris Reeves on Tue Aug 30, 2011 at 09:35:35 AM PDT

  •  Deregulation kills jobs and people (9+ / 0-)

    that is an even better counter and the truth.

    Practice tolerance, kindness and charity.

    by LWelsch on Tue Aug 30, 2011 at 09:42:49 AM PDT

  •  Compliance people (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nailbanger, LWelsch, totallynext

    If you have to hire people to comply with a law/regulation  then that  law/regulation has created a job...

    Case in point Patriot act mandated tighter monitoring for money laundering activity. Look for want ads for banks needing AML people.  

    So it's The Why do you hate this country You're Obsessed with misquoting me out of context while I was in the process of misspeaking with the sun in my eyes while chowing down and bashing Sharia law God Bless America defense.......

    by JML9999 on Tue Aug 30, 2011 at 09:44:48 AM PDT

  •  My example for this: (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LWelsch, OpherGopher, eXtina, BlueSue

    How many millionaires have been created over the past 100 years because of mandatory fire alarms, smoke alarms, and sprinklers? There's a lot of privately owned companies who produce these items. That's a lot of opportunity that wouldn't exist with regulation.

  •  Republicans shill for Koch, etal - not America (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OpherGopher, shoeless
    Republicans have pounded the phrase "job-killing regulations" into the public consciousness

    GOP 2012 campaign ads - "Tax the working poor!"

    by MartyM on Tue Aug 30, 2011 at 09:48:10 AM PDT

  •  Keep talking about JOBS (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shoeless, The Totalizer, HeyMikey

    My plan is to comment on every story about jobs.  If Obama can concentrate solely, SOLELY, on jobs then I believe he has a shot.  Despite what most people think, there is still 14 months of work to be done.  He could campaign those 14, or go and build a million job campaign.

    •  I wish I could read a new story every day about (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      how government regulation creates the impetus for hiring new employees for useful, high-paying jobs.  The federal government can directly create the need within the private sector with the benefit accruing to the public.

      For every difficult question, there is an answer that is simple, easily understood and wrong.--H.L. Mencken

      by The Totalizer on Tue Aug 30, 2011 at 01:27:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Obama needn't just talk jobs; he could create jobs (0+ / 0-)

        Please see my comment below, "EPA as Congress-free stimulus."

        "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

        by HeyMikey on Tue Aug 30, 2011 at 02:20:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Since my job is directly due to regulations . . . (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shoeless, shaharazade

    I'm a commercial real estate appraiser. 90% of the work in this field would be done unprofessionally and with biased personnel if it weren't for regulations. This 90% would be done by corporate employees as part of their greatly expanded workloads without any additional pay.

    If there weren't regulations requiring independent appraisers not only would there be far fewer working in this field, the public would greatly suffer as banks and corporate buyers have their employees put whatever value the company wants on property.

    Regulations not only help people, they also hire people.

  •  Regulation sets the floor for my competition (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shoeless, totallynext

    In construction, without regulation, I would not survive constructing quality buildings.  And building a quality product takes more man hours at a higher skill level, so its a two fer: more jobs and better jobs.
    As a regulation, perhaps none has added more jobs than the Americans with Disabilities Act, which has forced owners of public spaces to upgrade everything from parking lots to bathrooms.  

  •  "Job Killing" talking point (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    When the GOP uses the words "Job Killing" in any context, what they're doing is using scare tactics.  Right now, jobs are priority #1 and anything that is presented that can be called "job killing" is negative....and like it or not, many times our populace/voters don't actually stay on top of these kinds of things.

    - If you don't like gay marriage, blame straight people. They're the ones who keep having gay babies.

    by r2did2 on Tue Aug 30, 2011 at 09:56:27 AM PDT

  •  power outages during Hurricane Irene (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eXtina, totallynext, The Totalizer

    are largely preventable would communities, states and FEDs enforce the moving of power lines under ground. Nowhere in Europe will you see any power lines. They are all under ground. Most mortgages are already backed by the US government - why not attaching some regulations to this massive spending that would actually move us forward? Why not attaching energy efficiency, heating and cooling efficiency requirements to all these mortgages? Can't we progress a little?

  •  These aren't the kind of jobs the GOP (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eXtina, The Totalizer

    wants. They talk a good game, but they don't actually care if regular people have good paying jobs. They're far more concerned about jobs for hedge fund managers and for the little girl in China manufacturing goods.

    I hate to be cynical, but...I've become cynical. The green jobs are here, they're good paying jobs, and the GOP doesn't want them.

    Michael Levi just put up a very good piece on why green jobs pay better than other jobs (hint: unionization is an answer).

    "At this point of unimaginable threats on the horizon, this is what hope looks like." - Tim DeChristopher @RL_Miller

    by RLMiller on Tue Aug 30, 2011 at 09:58:28 AM PDT

  •  So what? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Oh, we have the truth on our side!  We have facts on our side!  Big freakin' deal!

    They have a narrative and all that matters is their narrative.   And they win because they have a narrative.

    We lose because we tout how our policies are so good.

    They lie and they look good doing it.

    The least we could do is create an emotional narrative and stick to it.  We could even base it in reality.  But without a successful narrative -- without successfully framing the debate -- we'll be weak and right, they'll stay strong and wrong and progressives will continue to lose ground.

    So, yeah, we can high-five each other in our friendly corner of cyberspace but it isn't going to change anything.

    "Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S. media." -Noam Chomsky

    by Joshua Lyman on Tue Aug 30, 2011 at 10:03:01 AM PDT

  •  Maybe Excessive Profit Killing for huge (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The Totalizer

    Corporations, but of course, that's what's really important to them. Not jobs.

    "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

    by eXtina on Tue Aug 30, 2011 at 10:11:42 AM PDT

  •  Willfully ignorant (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Of course regulations will create more job.. more regulators, more jobs creating new energies, etc.

    But higher energy prices mean less jobs in nearly every sector of the economy.  We've seen it happen over the past few years when oil prices have soared. It is proven fact.

    And let's be honest here - renewable energy is simply not up to the task of supplying anything but a minuscule amount of energy needed.. especially in the northwest.

    There would be no jobs gained.  There would be a net loss - and in this economy, that is very very stupid.

    We need to pursue alternative energy sources, and encourage their use - but NOT by regulating fossil fuels out of existence.

    If this is the kind of crap that Obama is going to try to sling in his jobs speech next week, we better get used to hearing the phrase "President Perry".

    •  Doesn't follow (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      If the price of energy goes up because global prices go up, then more money (claim on resources) is being exported from countries that are net importers, such as the United States.

      If the price of energy goes up as a mechanism of regulation (i.e. a carbon levy, whether by direct taxation or credit auction) then the extra money (claim on resources) stays in the country instead.

      If you regulate fuel consumption via e.g. CAFE standards, you do two things: (i) depress demand from where it otherwise would have been, thus keeping more money (claim on resources) within the country since import requirements go down; and (ii) depress fuel price from where it otherwise would have been owing to lower global demand, thus keeping more money (claim on resources) within the country.

      The latter two are very different from the first.

      To be sure, the report itself does say that value added and employment in the retail and wholesale trade sectors would be negatively impacted, just not by as much as other sectors gain (see page 66 especially).

      On the sufficiency of renewables, I suggest you take a look at the relevant bit of Without the Hot Air - renewable energy and the future of energy use is a big topic which I don't want to pre-emptively jump into, but renewable energy resources are a lot more than enough for North America on their own.

      •  You have a flaw in your logic (0+ / 0-)

        I will grant you the extra costs for energy that are caused by regulation stay in country.

        But, that completely ignores my point.  My point is that producers will cut back.  Consumers will cut back.  More people will lose their jobs.

        Yes, the government will have more cash - but not as much as hoped for since so many more people will be out of work and paying less taxes.  Corporate taxes will also decline.  Corporations will move production overseas at a faster rate since energy costs there (wherever) will be at global market rates rather than inflated US rates.

        A further depressed economy will even further depress demand for renewable energy like Solar PV installations.. really.. it's a pipe dream.  The real world doesn't work like that.

        Renewables -
        And that other link may be factual.  But that's a 30-50 year plan, it seems to me.  While now would be a good time to get started, jacking up the price of fossil fuels is not the way to get there.

        First off, we don't produce wind turbines here.. at least not much compared to China and some European countries.  GE, a US company, makes most of their equipment outside of the USA.

        Secondly, demand is already very high for wind power.  We don't need to stifle the rest of the economy to boost demand for wind.   (US Governors recently wrote Obama asking his administration to help them build more wind.)  So, it seems kinda silly to punish the economy into building something they already are chomping at the bit to do.

        We simply need to provide the carrots - regulatory and cost (loan guarantees, low-cost loans, liability assistance) - to encourage production here.

        Maybe we should get Obama to strong-arm his buddy Immelt!

        •  You miss five things. (0+ / 0-)

          (1) Most obviously, some taxes have to be paid by somebody, and any taxation causes exactly the job-killing, consumer-expenditure-reducing effect you cite. But we have to pay some taxes to maintain some level of government, because anarchy is even worse for business than reasonable taxation. So the question is not whether a carbon tax or cap-and-trade have some job-killing effect; the question is whether they have more of a job-killing effect than alternative methods of taxation. And since a greenhouse tax would generate at least some jobs (as the diarist points out), the answer is probably that they are better for the overall jobs picture than a lot of other kinds of taxes. (And as you may have noticed, we have a bit of a government debt problem.)

          (2) Global warming also harms the economy. It's already likely causing more and stronger hurricanes, hotter summers (causing people to spend more on AC), longer droughts, and more severe floods (Missouri River just dropped below flood stage, where it's been since...June). And eventually it's probably going to severely affect agriculture and make it harder for large cities in arid areas to maintain an adequate water supply in dry seasons. So again the question is not whether a greenhouse tax would cost any jobs, it's whether a greenhouse tax would cost more jobs than the alternative, i.e., unchecked global warming.

          (3) Krugman says the economic effects of a reasonable greenhouse tax would be quite modest:

          (4) Krugman also points out that we don't really know the full danger from global warming, and there's a not-insignificant chance of utter disaster. Thus it's worth paying something to head that off: (If you read only one thing, read this.) After all, you buy car insurance and home insurance to protect against  potential large losses, even though you may have no car or home loss at all. By your logic, buying that insurance is wastefully foolish.

          (5) The economy isn't everything. Global warming is also causing human suffering, especially in coastal areas (e.g., Bangladesh) and is on track to cause a lot more. Preventing that is worth spending some money.

          "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

          by HeyMikey on Tue Aug 30, 2011 at 02:43:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Still disagreeing... (0+ / 0-)
          But, that completely ignores my point.  My point is that producers will cut back.  Consumers will cut back.  More people will lose their jobs.

          That is only the case if revenue (claim on resources) from auctions/taxes disappears somehow (e.g. those resources are then claimed and poured into a hole in the ground).  If it is instead redistributed, by e.g. creating demand for green technologies directly, creating demand in unrelated sectors, or lowering other taxes from where they otherwise would be, then demand would be shifted, not inevitably reduced overall.

          With respect, I don't feel I ignored your point before: in pointing out how regulation/taxation to use less carbon is fundamentally different than high international market prices doing the same when it comes to the economy, when you only used the example of the latter depressing jobs to support your argument without making the distinction between that and voluntary reallocation of demand.

          Corporations will move production overseas at a faster rate since energy costs there (wherever) will be at global market rates rather than inflated US rates.

          Here's the dirty little secret that never gets any press: as long as you don't treat foreign goods and services worse than local ones, you're fine by the WTO.  Raising a tariff on the import of foreign goods corresponding to the local tax rate on the amount of carbon used in their production is just fine.  There is no reason not to (other than, in this particular case, the states not having the individual authority to).  The only advantage you give outsourcing of production from this kind of regulation/taxation is one you choose to.

          And that other link may be factual.  But that's a 30-50 year plan, it seems to me.  While now would be a good time to get started, jacking up the price of fossil fuels is not the way to get there.

          Actually it had better be a lot less than a 50-year plan, since if the world is to be expected to continue its 2% annual increase in primary energy use, all fossil fuels of all types taken together can only provide 50 years of it, and that's not accounting for increasing extraction costs or pre-exhaustion peaks.  Either nukes or renewables will have to make up large fractions of the total long before 50 years are up or else world primary energy production will necessarily fall, and fall precipitously.

          Why is jacking up the price of fossil fuels not the way to get there?  A pigouvian tax regime should induce a more efficient distribution of resources: if we subsidize renewables (financially) as well as fossil fuels (by ignoring their social costs) then what ends up happening is using more energy than is efficient to use (resources are diverted into energy production that would otherwise go into other parts of the economy).

          Carrots are fine as far as they go to help get a socially necessary industry going on economies of scale, but sticks are a must for correcting bad behavior.

  •  Just ask Honeywell - a multi billion (0+ / 0-)

    $ company primarily focused on REgulations - All divisions have some stake in Safety / Fire / material needs almost exclusive based on federal regulation.

    Why do you think they love Obama and the Dems...

  •  Renewable energy (0+ / 0-)

    Investment is such a no-brainer for not just jobs but it is essential to be building out such infrastructure for the future.

    Republicans: Taking the country back ... to the 19th century

    by yet another liberal on Tue Aug 30, 2011 at 10:50:04 AM PDT

  •  OT something very weird just happened (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rebel ga, Garrett

    I wanted to comment that my rec check mark keeps disappearing after I've recced this diary three times; the comment box was not the usual one, then when I went to post it anyway, I got some weird code and "Republish" at the bottom of the page as if I were the diarist. Are we being hacked or what?

    •  There is a less functional comment box, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      marina, cville townie

      sort of an emergency or safety version.

      I'm not sure, but assume it works like this: load the simple less functional version first. Then, if everything goes OK, load the spiffier normal version. If your javascript gets messed up or bogged down, you are stuck with the simple comment box. "Weird code" would likely mean your javascript got messed up or bogged down.

      Most all site security checking would be done on the server, not in your local javascript. If your javascript gets messed up, that doesn't allow you to do anything you shouldn't.

      If you get in a messed up state, after an update like last nights, a Shift+Reload sometimes helps.

  •  A few omitted words: (0+ / 0-)

    Just in case anyone is expecting to see anything happen anytime soon.

    From the linked NRDC report about the report:
    "The report claims that by the tenth year, there would be significant job creation and increased economic output as a result of a CFS." [italics added]

    The original NESCAUM report is more measured:
    "Assuming low oil prices, a clean fuels program could have a small net benefit or small net cost, depending on the scenario analyzed."

  •  De-Reg of Financial Industry was "job destroyer" (0+ / 0-)

    Republicans and their loathing of regulations are the real "job destroyers" and are responsible for our current economic downfall.

    The Republicans led by Phil Gramm successfully deregulated the financial industry and the result has been hundreds of thousands of jobs gone.

  •  Some of these regs were court ordered (0+ / 0-)

    I saw Joe Barton last night talking about coals plants in Texas. He's leading the charge against these regulations that Cantor listed.

    Check this from the NYTimes in May:

    In March, the Environmental Protection Agency, acting under court order, proposed the first national standard for emissions of mercury, sulfur dioxide and other pollutants from coal-fired power plants.

    The standards, which have yet to be made final, are expected to lead to the closings of dozens of aging coal plants and require expensive clean-up technology to be installed at newer plants; industry groups and Republicans in Congress have vowed to fight them.

    Who cares if the air is clean as long as the coal and energy industry don't have to spend any of that precious profit.

    For all their tearing their hair out over the deficit and their  children and grandchildren, they don't have a care about what kind of planet we leave them.

    •  Socialization of costs, privatization of profits (0+ / 0-)

      Is a recurring theme.

      If there are no regulations, there is no cost to pollution, because healthcare for illnesses caused and quality of life issues are other people's problems.

      You get the GDP boost from having your costs reduced by not having to account for them, then a further GDP boost from treating subsequent illnesses caused.  It's a win-win!

  •  Now is the time for the left to act like a Neo-Con (0+ / 0-)

    It's great to pass along this info on a left leaning blog but how about the vast majority of the country who do not view either left leaning or right leaning blogs?  This is the info that needs to be commercialized and placed in 30 second TV and radio spots.  This is where you purchase ad space in newspapers and magazines.

    That is where you find the voters you need.

  •  can't reacommend this enough (0+ / 0-)

    Deregulation is in a large part responsible for our messed up economy. We need to bring it back. Glass Steagall included.  

  •  EPA could be Congress-free stimulus. (0+ / 0-)

    Guess what:

    Supreme Court Upholds EPA's Authority to Regulate Carbon Dioxide

    WASHINGTON, DC, June 20, 2011 (ENS) - The U.S. Supreme Court today reaffirmed its finding that carbon dioxide is an air pollutant subject to control under the Clean Air Act and upheld the authority of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate the greenhouse gas.

    The EPA is an executive branch agency, i.e., under the direction of the President. It doesn't need authority from Congress to act, other than the authority of the Clean Air Act, which is already in place. (And can't be repealed without overriding an Obama veto, which ain't gonna happen.)

    So here's the HeyMikey Congress-Free Stimulus Plan:

    1. EPA issues new regulation: to emit CO2 or methane, you have to buy a CO2 or methane license from the EPA.

    2. The EPA will auction these licenses to the highest bidder. The $ raised will go to deficit reduction.

    3. The licenses available in each auction will only cover about 90 days' worth of the nation's greenhouse emissions, at current rates.

    4. The number of licenses available at each auction will gradually decline.

    Immediately the nation's utilities will start hiring people to install solar panels, wind turbines, insulation, LED lights, repair leaky pipelines, capture methane from landfills, etc. Airlines will start looking to diversify into high-speed rail, which they'll need to hire a lot of people to build.

    The steeper the cutback in the CO2/methane licenses offered, the faster people get hired to implement alternative energy.

    No Congressional action required.

    "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

    by HeyMikey on Tue Aug 30, 2011 at 02:12:07 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site