FactCheck.org: (Chemical and Oil lobbies') Front Group Claims EPA Threatens 7 Million Jobs

[pampango]

http://factcheck.org/2011/08/front-group-claims-epa-threatens-7-million-jobs/

Chemical and oil lobbies were behind an ad that dogged Obama's Midwestern bus tour, attacking anti-smog regulations proposed by the administration. Their trade groups are among the business organizations backing a front group calling itself the "Coalition for American Jobs," which sponsored the ad.

The TV spot accused the president of "talking jobs" on his Midwestern tour, while his administration is "putting 7 million American jobs at risk" by considering "unnecessary" tightening of anti-smog regulations. The job-loss claim turns out to be based on an industry-sponsored study that predicts astronomical compliance costs. That industry study has been called "unsound" and "fundamentally flawed" by a university-based economist.

We dug a little further, contacting the American Chemistry Council. The ACC is one of the business groups that have been urging the president to delay until 2013 the rule the ad refers to. (The Environmental Protection Agency has already delayed the anti-smog rule four times, most recently on July 26, this time to allow the White House Office of Management and Budget to review the proposal.) Anne Kolton, the chemistry council's vice president for communications, confirmed that her group is among the members of the "jobs" coalition. "Other members of the CAJ include the American Petroleum Institute, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Forest and Paper Association, the National Association of Manufacturers," Kolton told us via email.

Kolton also answered our questions about the source of the ad's claim that 7 million jobs would be "at risk" because of the EPA's proposal. The basis turns out to be an economic study produced by the Manufacturers Alliance and financed by the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Petroleum Institute. The study concludes that if EPA adopted the strictest standard under consideration (a limit of 60 parts per billion on primary ozone, down from the 84 parts per billion limit in effect currently), the cost of compliance would be astronomical — reaching more than $1 trillion a year and reducing the size of the nation's economic output by 3.6 percent in 2020. The study projected U.S. job losses of 7.3 million, equivalent to 4.3 percent of the entire workforce in 2020.

[sakabatou]

1. Tch

It's just like them to make outrageous lies.

[Angry Dragon]

2. Anyone advocating for less strict standards should be forced

to move to the area that is involved to prove that it is safe.
They should be forced to live under the rules they want

[applegrove]

3. The GOP always has to be attacking something in order to bond with their base.

And to keep the nastyness they have taught the base at the front of their brains. Take em out for a spin. This week it is the EPA. Next week it will be gays or PBS again. This is what a Republican primary is all about.

[napoleon_in_rags]

4. Here's an idea: how bout all those chemists get together

and find a way to burn hydrocarbons without producing that smog?

I am SO SICK of this "perception is reality" crap that's been driving the military and private sector for too long: Reality is defined as those perceptions which don't go away when you stop believing in them. Scientists are the lawmen in these parts, and that means unless you guys want to die to incarnate on some other plane, you are beholden to scientific law, miracles happen only in the cracks in between scientific laws, and will always have a scientific explanation. So its time to stop these feeble attempts to "believe" global warming away, "believe" pollution away, and its time to start using your god given intellect to create that economic and military success story within the context of scientific laws. The discipline of having to do so will do your soul some good.

Peace,
NIR