EPA's proposed climate rules without White House filter

Lisa Heinzerling reminds us that EPA has produced an "objective and levelheaded, yet also ambitious and creative" advance notice of proposed rulemaking or ANPRM on regulating carbon under the Clean Air Act:

The draft ANPRM also contains good news from the perspective of climate regulation.  In the May 30 draft, EPA concludes -- specifically focusing on regulation of mobile sources -- that the benefits of regulating greenhouse gases are vastly greater than the costs. According to EPA, regulation of mobile sources would produce $2 trillion in net benefits.  EPA even concludes that car owners will, over the lifetime of owning a car, save money if strict controls are put in place.  (This is because the regulations EPA has in mind would make cars more fuel efficient.)  This should come as good news to everyone, environmentalists and economists alike.

EPA produced this happy economic conclusion using manifestly reasonable assumptions.
[...]

That was then.

Today we are awaiting the publication of the official version edited by the White House, prompting the Washington Post to run a front-page story titled "EPA Won't Act on Emissions This Year":

"The administration didn't want to show a high-dollar value for reducing carbon," said one EPA official, adding that the administration cut dozens of pages from a draft that outlined cost-effective ways to reduce greenhouse gases.
[...]

Comments

[joshua corning]

According to EPA, regulation of mobile sources would produce $2 trillion in net benefits.

We can save money by not breathing!!!

The EPA has proven it with science!!

They also have a perpetual motion machine in their basement but Bush stops them from taking it out!!

[Bob]

Also, Joshua, restoring the income tax rates to what they were in 1958, adjusted for inflation, would have an even greater economic benefit (lower crime, better health, better education). Too bad you were educated in the nations declining years.

[joshua corning]

(lower crime, better health, better education)

Then how come in 1958 the crime rate was higher and people died younger?

But you are right about k-12 public funded education but for the wrong reason....in 1958 there was no department of education.

I always thought it was only the Christian Right who wanted to live in the 50s...

[Bob]

For crime rates back to 1960 go to: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Yes, it is two years later than 1958, but that's the best I could do under such short notice. Looks like crime rates were much lower then (in 1960). As far as the department of education, I fail to see the point. You can say it is the cause of the decline in education or increase in crime. No one buys that. What ever the cause, the country is in decline. You can say it's because people are stupid, and that may be true. But, if the people are idiots do you trust them to teach themselves? They need training by people who know how to train. Gain bangers are not very educated. That does not mean they are not intelligent. But they need training (sure, start with better prospects first). The point is the money for training needs to come from some where. The poor, who need the most training, don't have the money. Where are you going to get the money? Employers? They don't want the risk of training someone just for that person to leave for a better job. They are not going to train someone in an employment at will situation. They would be crazy to. So, again, where does the money come from? It can only come from those who have it. You know, the Waltons, Gates, Slim, Cheney.

Now, back to the reason cutting pollution increases benefits. Few people realize that an increase in humidity and temperature caused by global warming also means an increase in mold. In the near future we will have a great increase in respiratory diseases due to mold. Athletes will have difficulty exercising. People will need to spend more time indoors. As a result, health will decline. Cost from health care will increase. I bet none of you put this into your analysis. Where I live it's a pain in the ass to exercise in the winter and the summer is worse. I really don't look forward to this mold issue, but it is coming. I guess the fat clothes are here to stay.

[Bob]

As far as why people live longer now than in 1958, the primary reason is the reduction in smoking rates, a reduction in saturated fat consumption and the continuing progress in emergency medicine and some (not all) medicines. That makes up about 90 percent of the improvement. Most of the improvement, though, is due to initiatives that started in the 1960's. We are no longer making improvements in health. Things actually are looking pretty bad.

[Bob]

Other important contributors to the longer lifespan in the united states include automobile safety (again, initiatives from the 60's - Ralph Nader - and 70's, and the significant INCREASE in alcohol consumption. Yes, drinking definitely makes you live longer. So, now for another beer.

[eCurrency Arbitrage]

automobile is also one of the finical crisis of the state but now it has developed very huge in economy of the country