The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has taken a lot of flack in recent months. It has been called everything from a "rogue agency" and "regulatory train-wreck" to "the job killing organization of America", and has become a major focus of Republican candidates vying for that party's presidential nomination.
So, how does all of the recent anti-EPA rhetoric stack up to the facts? Not very well, according to information from several independent research groups and the federal government's own Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
According to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, "Since EPA's inception, we've heard concerns that meeting reasonable health standards hurts bottom lines and prevents job creation. But in truth, updating environmental standards not only closes pollution loopholes, but levels the playing field and provides certainty to businesses to create jobs."
She's right. Since 1970, investments made to comply with the Clean Air Act have provided between $4 and $8 in economic benefits for every $1 spent on regulatory compliance, according to the OMB.
Even more interesting, since the passage of the 1990 amendments strengthening the Clean Air Act, average electricity rates in the US have remained flat even as utilities have invested hundreds of billions of dollars toward cutting emissions of harmful air pollutants like sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxides.
There are also public health and other benefits from EPA pollution rules that save taxpayers billions of dollars annually. In fact, clean air and water regulations put in force by the EPA between 1999 and 2009 are estimated to have created up to $533 billion in economic benefits with an aggregate cost of just $29 billion.
Earlier this year, the EPA also enacted the “cross-state air pollution rule,” which limits sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions, pollutants linked to asthma, bronchitis and heart attacks. This rule is expected to prevent an average of 23,500 premature deaths each year. By preventing early deaths, asthma and heart attacks, the pollution cuts from the rule are estimated to provide total health benefits averaging nearly $100 billion per year.
A recent report by the University of Massachusetts Political Economy Research Institute also found significant job creation benefits from the new air pollution rules, with an estimated 300,000 new jobs being created annually nationwide as old and outdated power plants are replaced with cleaner and more efficient energy sources.
"Given the state of the economy, many are concerned about the new air pollution regulations' impact on jobs. Our research demonstrates that robust employment growth will take place alongside efforts to reduce harmful emissions," said Dr. James Heintz, PERI's Associate Director and Assistant Research Professor. "We need to move beyond the idea that environmental protection compromises the ongoing growth of our economy."
As for speculation that the rules may negatively impact the ability of utilities to keep us supplied with a steady source of electricity, the latest report by M.J. Bradley and Associates and the Bipartisan Policy Center conclude that power companies are already well-prepared for the changes and have sufficient generation capacity to maintain the reliability of our grid.
Unfortunately, the recent partisan rhetoric has lead to the halting of more new programs that could create jobs, reduce public health problems, and save taxpayers money. One, the Utility Toxics Rule, would reduce allowable levels of mercury pollution emitted from power plants. Mercury is a potent nerve toxin that can be especially harmful to both children and developing fetuses. Total health savings from the rule are estimated at between $3.4 to $4.5 billion annually.
In summary, the EPA has provided vast public health and economic benefits over its 41 year history. At the same time, it has also helped the US clean up and modernize its energy infrastructure. And, while it is often targeted in some political circles as a heavy-handed and "job killing" organization, history shows that environmental regulations actually bolster the economy and support millions of well-paying American jobs. Hopefully, our policy makers will consider this information carefully when making decisions about the future of the EPA and its rule-making process. Our environment, our public health, and our economy depend on it.
Comments