From the inbox:
Environmental regulations are unlikely to move the needle on jobs—they won’t drive the unemployment rate up or down. And it can be misleading to voters to make it seem otherwise.
This week, the Senate debated and rejected EPA’s mercury exposure regulation, EPA moved forward with a new soot rule, and today, the House will considered an energy drilling bill.
In each case, opponents voiced concern that public protections would “kill jobs.” But rarely are the analyses that back up these claims cited. When they are, they prove insufficient to support these kinds of statements.
Our report, the Regulatory Red Herring, released in the spring, explains the problems underlying many jobs analyses and discusses a more useful way of weighing regulation—by putting employment into the broader context of the overall costs and benefits of the rule.
These “job-killing” claims are not likely to stop anytime soon. Especially as we approach an election, it is important to be clear about what effects regulations have or don’t have on jobs.
I normally delete my blog-related spam after a quick look, but this one seems to be completely consistent with the env-econ.net playbook.
