Obama EPA’s Latest Ruling Will Cost at Least $11 Billion a Year

Let’s face it.
The purists in the Obama Administration don’t care if their policies destroy the American economy.

(WFB)

Tucked down in the last paragraph of this article at The Hill is this little nugget. The Obama EPA’s latest piece of regulation will cost at least $11 billion a year.

Former White House energy and climate adviser Carol Browner on Tuesday lamented GOP-led attacks on the Environmental Protection Agency, arguing they’re at odds with the historical success of agency protections.

“There does seem to be, among some, a lot of hostility toward EPA writ large, just toward the whole idea that we are going to set public health standards and we are going to require companies to meet them,” said Browner, who left the White House earlier this year and is now a senior fellow with the liberal Center for American Progress (CAP)…

…The rule proposed in March, according to EPA, would prevent as many as 17,000 premature deaths and 11,000 heart attacks a year, among other health benefits.

The agency estimates that annual costs of the rule would be $11 billion, but projects that they will be outweighed several times over by the value of the health benefits.

So which junk science report did they pull the premature death and heart attack numbers from?
What a crock.

#1 June 21, 2011 at 3:45 pm
Molon Lobe commented:

The EPA puts mercury filled bulbs that they say are toxic in our houses and then do this?

How many crazies work there?

The GOP should abolish this agency as soon as possible.
#2 June 21, 2011 at 3:48 pm
Mark O commented:

So the EPA wants to spend $11 Billion to “prevent as many as 17,000 premature deaths”. That is almost $650,000/premature death prevented. The report doesn’t say how many additional years those people will live if these regulations are passed, but even if it is 50 years the cost benefit ratio of these regulations is just far too high.

And therein lies the problem with new EPA regulations. All the low hanging fruit has already been picked, and almost all additional regulations cost more than they are worth.
#3 June 21, 2011 at 3:50 pm
Harrison commented:

How much money would the economy save if Obama became unemployed?
#4 June 21, 2011 at 3:51 pm
#1AMERICAN commented:

hey EPA suck this you farce of an agency…
#5 June 21, 2011 at 3:57 pm
aprilnovember811 commented:

“The purists in the Obama Administration don’t care if their policies destroy the American economy.”
And a castrated House of Representatives allows it. They can defund this agency but won’t. They are equally responsible.
#6 June 21, 2011 at 4:16 pm
GUS commented:

Maybe John Boner discussed this during the GOLF OUTING.
#7 June 21, 2011 at 4:29 pm
Blacque Jacques Shellacque commented:

The agency estimates that annual costs of the rule would be $11 billion, but projects that they will be outweighed several times over by the value of the health benefits.

They’ll have to excuse me for taking their “projection” with a grain of salt…
#8 June 21, 2011 at 4:29 pm
FurryGuyJeans commented:

Anyone remember the number gamesmanship that was played to make Obamacare look like it would save money, and ended up adding significantly to the deficit? In a few months the currently calculated $11B cost of this EPA ruling will be shown to have been grossly underestimated.
#9 June 21, 2011 at 4:29 pm
mike191 commented:

It takes a special person,president44,to find so many loons that run and staff all these departments that are tyrannical to the American people.
#10 June 21, 2011 at 4:31 pm
bobdog commented:

I defy anyone to try to get through a day without running afoul of one EPA regulation or another.

You can’t do it. Nor can anybody else you know.
#11 June 21, 2011 at 4:35 pm
FurryGuyJeans commented:

So which junk science report did they pull the premature death and heart attack numbers from?

Pulled from their collective asses, it seems.
#12 June 21, 2011 at 4:48 pm
SeniorD commented:

When are our ‘representatives’ realize their actions have consequences on OUR wallets? There isn’t a Federal Agency that isn’t a tax revenue sucking hole in the ground. The EPA (and DoEd) are the worst offenders.

Shrink the tax burden by reducing Federal Government (all 3 Branches) size and scope.
#13 June 21, 2011 at 4:53 pm
Ipso Facto commented:

Carol Browner is NG. She is the one who ran the EPA under Clinton and in an arrogant and audacious violation of a federal judge’s order requiring the agency to preserve its records, she erased all of the hard drives at the end of the Clinton administration.

She resigned from the position of the Director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy (the so-called “energy czar”), not too long ago because the handwriting was on the wall that after the comprehensive energy bill (including the economically damaging Cap and Trade deal, amongst other things) was not going to pass with the new GOP majority in the house, and there was little need for her to stick around.

She was hell bent on having Cap and Trade simply enacted because she thought it could fit in under the Clean Air Act. It is widely believed she got out of Dodge so that she couldn’t be deposed about the Gulf Drilling ban in which the government totally misrepresented what the scientists actually said. Hmmm, does anyone suppose she had anything to do with that?

This woman is bad news and that she has anything good to say about the EPA adding new regulations is very bad news for our economy both long and short term. She and people like her are determined for us to be a bankrupt country with the cleanest environment on the planet.
.
#14 June 21, 2011 at 5:00 pm
Valerie commented:

“There does seem to be, among some, a lot of hostility toward EPA writ large, just toward the whole idea that we are going to set public health standards and we are going to require companies to meet them,” said Browner,…”

No. The hostility is to the use of bad science and radical rulemaking to saddle our industries with high costs at either little benefit or even significant detriment. Incidently, I don’t buy the calculation at #2 above. I don’t assume that ANY lives will be saved, absent something besides a bare allegation.

I’ve seen what the EPA does with numbers. Those idiots call carbon dioxide a “major” greenhouse gas, even though it comprises well less than 1% of the earth’s atmosphere. Actually, the number is less than 400 parts per million. They don’t seem to understand that the major greenhouse gas, water, swamps the effects of carbon dioxide.

They are also the people who want to force us to give up our reliable incandescent bulbs for bulbs that contain mercury.

Most people want reasonable pollution regulation. Most people want to see rules that require industries to clean up their messes. So, when the EPA focuses on power grabs made on hysterical non-science and solutions that are worse than the problem they seek to fix, people get irritated.
#15 June 21, 2011 at 5:32 pm
Sally S commented:

I have 2 words for Obama, the people in his regime, and the 60 million who voted for him… and those 2 words aren’t thank you.
#16 June 21, 2011 at 5:49 pm
chuck in st paul commented:

You can add at least one zero to that cost number, maybe more.

This is just a naked power grab. It would hobble the economy and take control of the citizens lives like nothing in the last fifty years. It would make Nazis look weak and simple minded compared to the power over the people from this atrochious act. The act of farting would require a carbon offset. Baby’s breath would be deemed harmful to [fill in the blank]. All the while the global temperatures will slide southward over the next thirty years. I’m sure they want to take credit for it thus justifying a fascist government to save us all.
#17 June 21, 2011 at 5:55 pm
LibertyAtStake commented:

The statists will never be satisfied … at least not until … we’re all restricted to EPA approved bubbles … It’ll be the Bubble People Society.

d(^_^)b
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
“Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”
#18 June 21, 2011 at 5:56 pm
Trialdog commented:

Er, the actual number is 28,766 healthy lives created or saved (minus those lost to illegal aliens using weapons supplied to them by the ATF).
#19 June 21, 2011 at 6:00 pm
succotash commented:

I personally don’t see how it is going to help the environment when we have to start burning our furniture to stay warm after O is done killing off coal. Becks’ show was excellent today. This whole EPA thing is just scary as he!!. It is so obvious that O is bankrupting the country while turning America into a third world country. Wake the he!! up you liberals!!1 Go ask the Cubans how socialism has worked for them.I know I’m preaching to the choir here, just had to rant.
#20 June 21, 2011 at 6:00 pm
CherryDelite commented:

Soon no one’s going to have a job. The Bible says we have dominion over the earth. Let’s dominate!!!
#21 June 21, 2011 at 6:21 pm
Agent 99 commented:

Slum Lord Obama …Heck, he froze his own ”people”’ out in Grove Parc and other Chi-Town Buildings.
That was just greed and laziness. His EPA is death. But first Hell On Earth.
“Obama’s housing policies bode ill …..” An article similiar to that.
#22 June 21, 2011 at 6:32 pm
avery commented:

I seen BECK today,as they close down coal power plant they are sending our coal to China so they can have cheap Energy while our will go up.
#23 June 21, 2011 at 6:36 pm
katy commented:

Define HEALTH? The value of health benefits? Feeding our families is also a really good health benefit. Without a job, no income, no home, no nothing….please tell me what health benefits this will ensure?

These people don’t think past the nose on their face!!!

The lunatics are running funny farm!
#24 June 21, 2011 at 7:00 pm
Ipso Facto commented:

Everyone remember – this isn’t about the environment.

They know their numbers are junk and their climate science is based on computer models in which they skewed the performance criteria. Everyone saw the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and how they were trying to create data to make Gore’s hockey stick graph work – and the truth is that it’s nonsense. We all saw how they all but falsified the scientist’s opinions to justify the Gulf drilling moratorium. Everyone knows that the volcanoes of the world put out more CO2 in a few days than we could ever hope to save in years.

Its all about control and the undoing of capitalism. If they can manufacture thousands of punitive regulations, they can then next hire thousands of bureaucrats and regulators and environmental police. All of these people will be beholden to the Democratic Party and once hired, they will vote Democratic for the balance of their lives.

Remember that Obama is a charlatan and he worked with ACORN to steal elections all over the nation, isn’t it a bit weird that such people who claim to have such concern for the planet don’t have any concern for the voting public? And these are the same people who want to give millions of tax payer dollars to Planned Parenthood for abortions. How is it that they want to conserve all of the resources on the planet, but they want to abort so many unborn children? Their behavior is very telling. Don’t believe them for one minute when they make such dramatic speeches about clean water. Next time you hear that old saw, ask them why they don’t care about clean voting records.

Its all baloney and if we fail to see the truth behind it, we are vulnerable to their fallacious arguments. It’s all a scam to give them CONTROL so they can consolidate their power over us.
#25 June 21, 2011 at 7:37 pm
FGT commented:

It’s all about Agenda 21…
http://blogs.forbes.com/larrybell/2011/06/14/the-u-n-s-earth-summit-has-its-head-in-the-clouds/

“Addressing the Summit audience, Strong also suggested a primary remedy, whereby: We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse.” Former Senator Timothy Wirth, representing the Clinton-Gore administration as undersecretary of state for global affairs, stated that public concern about global warming could be used to advance that cause: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” Wirth now heads the U.N. Foundation which has lobbied for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.”
#26 June 21, 2011 at 9:08 pm
Ms. LuLu commented:

Let’s see… My calculator doesn’t calculate “billions”. So I figured for the 28,000 (potential)
health beneficiaries it would cost only $3,930,000.. or $393,000.00 per . “Cheap” Eh. Go
for it. Start up the printing presses 24/7.
#27 June 21, 2011 at 9:15 pm
xqqme commented:

‘Most people want reasonable pollution regulation. Most people want to see rules that require industries to clean up their messes.’
It would be a blessing if an agency actually did their appointed job
#28 June 21, 2011 at 10:45 pm
big L commented:

If the cars go, hen we go back to horses? The environment was no clean in early 1900s. That was one thing thatdrove Henry Ford. He said that no humnas should have to put up with the care of a horse. At the end to the farmers day, there isthefeedingand the wiping down the coat and the horseshoes. Horses are wonderful animals but for working the car was better. Also he said that the streets were rivers of horse dung, and lot so filthy disease-carrying flies.
So legislate out crep and flies you EPA scum.
#29 June 22, 2011 at 12:03 am
HostileLogic commented:

“Let’s face it. The purists in the Obama Administration don’t care if their policies destroy the American economy.”

Jim, of course they care. If they fail to completely destroy this economy they will be bitterly disappointed.

Barack Hussein Obama is a malevolent Marxist cockroach.
#30 June 22, 2011 at 7:50 am
feduptoo commented:

Obama’s EPA has already killed off jobs!

1. Our coke plant, that supplied A-K Steel, was shut down due to the EPA’s newest & more costly regulations. 263 lost their jobs.

2. A neighboring State is also losing a factory due to the same reason.

3. AEP electric, is shutting down 5 plants, and switching off coal…over 600 will lose their jobs and we are told our electric rate will increase from 10% to 35%……after they already raised their rates in 2010!

4. In 3 States, this adm. has banned new coal mining permits.

Prepare to see more job losses, as the coal industry is tied into many other jobs…..heavy equipment dealerships, heavy eq. operators, the miners, truck drivers, etc.!

No one can tell me Obama is a “greenie”, if he were, he would not have allowed loans to go to Brazil, Mexico and other countries to drill for oil, and build refineries!

Coal mined in Wyoming is shipped to China.

China buys into a south Texas oil & gas field.

Seems our fuel resources are ok for China, but not for us!
#31 June 22, 2011 at 12:10 pm
Stuart commented:

Just wait until Obama decides to implement true social justice by sending our food supplies overseas as well.
Here’s a word to learn and store in your vocabulary. “HOLOMODOR” I fear we will become all to familiar with it in the future.
#32 June 22, 2011 at 6:26 pm
UpChuck.Liberals commented:

And just how many people will be KILLED because they don’t have electricity? How many business will go out for the same reason? I’m beginning to really dislike Leftwing Loons.

NoBO12