Get Ready For War On The Environment
Click here for reuse options!Republican lawmakers are planning an all-out assault on Obama’s environmental agenda, including rules on mercury and other air toxics from power plants, limits on ground-level ozone that causes smog, mountaintop mining restrictions and the EPA’s attempt to redefine its jurisdiction over streams and ponds.
The Interior Department is also in the crosshairs, with rules due to come soon on hydraulic fracturing on public land and protecting streams from mining waste.
Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Stuart Shapiro
Stuart is a professor and the Director of the Public Policy
program at the Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers
University. He teaches economics and cost-benefit analysis and studies
regulation in the United States at both the federal and state levels.
Prior to coming to Rutgers, Stuart worked for five years at the Office
of Management and Budget in Washington under Presidents Clinton and
George W. Bush.
44 responses to Get Ready For War On The Environment
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Lonny Dunn November 10th, 2014 at 12:03
So the new term: “war” is tossed around as irresponsibly as the word “racism” or “tea bagger” ?? We don’t hear how the price of gas is dropping like a brick because of exploration, modern techniques and the U.S. IN SPITE of regulations is forging ahead with plans to drill more.
Which is a quality of life issue, and an insidious tax which effects the costs of groceries, kids lunches, increases poverty, decreases jobs, and creates long term Recessions ~~ you should know this, Mr. Shapiro, more than anyone!!
Lower the price of gas to a 1.50, and the economy will grow, jobs will grow. Will the environmentalists be happy? No. But some inner city youth in Chicago and Boston and L.A. will get jobs, stop shooting each other over drugs, and the U.S. will remain the most prosperous and powerful example of Free Enterprise in the World.
Problems are solved when we look at these issues in their entirety.
I tweet at PronetworkBuild
edmeyer_able November 10th, 2014 at 12:08
Actually the price of gas is decreasing because of the glut of oil on the world market, the ‘modern techniques’ of which you speak are a cause of numerous environmental hazards and are more costly to use.
mea_mark November 10th, 2014 at 12:14
Dunn sounds like a professional, paid for, climate denier troll. He has his talking points lined with what the Koch brothers would like us to believe.
Stuart Shapiro November 10th, 2014 at 12:23
I actually agree with some of your points. Lower gas prices do help poorer people more than most. However, if I was going to pick a way to help the poor, I would prefer one that doesn’t hurt all of us (poor and rich) in the longer run.
mea_mark November 10th, 2014 at 12:39
Lower energy prices in general is good. With the cost of solar becoming truly competitive we can start using more renewables for energy and less oil and gas on fixed structures that don’t move. Using the oil and gas primarily for those things that require portable energy should decrease our need for it and help lower the cost.
Info on solar, some neat charts … http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/11/solar-energy-power-boom-charts
FrankenPC . November 16th, 2014 at 01:24
This ^^^. Lower energy costs AND a vibrant manufacturing sector turning out products like solar cells and wind turbines. It’s a win win. I can’t believe how hard legacy energy is fighting this. You would think they would be dumping tons of money in renewables to future proof their corporations.
mea_mark November 16th, 2014 at 09:28
Actually they are investing heavily in renewables, they are just doing it as quietly as possible. They just don’t want the public to realize what is really going on until they have a good control on future sources of energy and have maximized their profits on their previous investments.
FrankenPC . November 16th, 2014 at 11:42
Wow. That’s so very evil. No. They are corporations, it’s what they do. The evil parts are all the politicians who are acting like the bought and paid for messengers to do their dirty work.
edmeyer_able November 10th, 2014 at 13:06
So you commented on a liberal site and 1/2 your comment contains false info, was your only reason for commenting to drum up support for your blog or did you really want a conversation and were busted by the 1st person to reply?
Roctuna November 10th, 2014 at 20:43
Geez, we’ve been over this so many times. Lower energy costs will not create jobs. Disposable income in the hands of the middle class creates demand which creates jobs. Lowering costs without increasing demand and output just creates greater profits for business. A buck off a gallon of gas won’t decrease medical costs, or housing, or electricity, and would barely move the needle on food.
Spirit of America November 15th, 2014 at 07:35
It isn’t a single-thing-fixes-it-all thing. Lower oil costs, and gas, will help spur growth/jobs… more money in hands of poor/middle class and lower production cost of items(energy is single biggest cost of production).
What some folks need to do is quit looking for 1 single solution to a problem that is multifaceted… a little of this, a little of that and a little of this and then a solution becomes possible.
Roctuna November 15th, 2014 at 12:55
We agree on the need for a spectrum of solutions. Lonny Dunn was talking about gasoline, you’re talking about energy costs, two different things. Seems to me he was the one looking for magic solution.
Spirit of America November 15th, 2014 at 18:00
agreed
burqa November 20th, 2014 at 00:56
He wants soshulism in the form of the guvamint setting the price of gas.
FrankenPC . November 16th, 2014 at 01:22
Well. IMO, If we were dealing with a rational economy…I might agree. But we aren’t. Corporations will jack prices up at any available opportunity. Lower the gas prices and they’ll find some other way to increase profits to compensate. Corporations collude to do so. There’s no such thing as free market competition when you get to a big enough size.
As far as the effect on low income earners, yeah. There is a definite benefit. But then you get into a major global resource problem which is this: the actual legitimate cost of extracting, refining, shipping, and dealing with the environmental problems is being sent through a virtual time machine into the future where someone else is supposed to deal with the ramifications. Right? Who cares what the ramifications are if I won’t see them in my lifetime is the mantra.
At what point do we stop doing that? Or do you think it’s a good idea to never deal with actual costs and just keep attempting to shunt them forward in time? When you get right down to it, isn’t that really why climate change denial is so strong? Because admitting it’s real means we have to stop forwarding responsibility. Corporations REALLY don’t want to do that.
Matt Dillon November 18th, 2014 at 11:35
The lower gas prices are hurting the economy, it needs to stop!
burqa November 20th, 2014 at 00:55
We-ell, by your own words, regulation is not driving up costs. Indeed, it appears you are saying they are not a factor.
But what you are missing is a lot of the oil we are extracting is not so much due to new techniques as much as it is due to the rise in prices making it profitable for deposits identified over 50 years ago to be mined.
I have first-hand knowledge of this. I know of a particular area in northeast Arkansas where oil and natural gas deposits were identified over 50 years ago. To extract them was too costly until the cost rose to make it profitable. All along, the oil companies waited and finally came in several years ago when gas got over $3.00 a gallon. Then they came in, handed out big fat lease checks and didn’t need no new techniques. There’s nothing new about drilling a hole deeply.
Lower the cost of gas to $1.50 as you suggest (how, if not through socialistic governmental interference in the market?) and you’ll kill a lot of domestic production because here it is deeper and in smaller fields, compared to Saudi Arabia, where they practically have sweet crude coming up in the cups on their golf courses.
Oh, and when the price of gas was $1.50, inner city youth in Boston, Chicago and L.A. were shooting each other.
No, really!
Lonny Dunn November 10th, 2014 at 13:03
So the new term: “war” is tossed around as irresponsibly as the word “racism” or “tea bagger” ?? We don’t hear how the price of gas is dropping like a brick because of exploration, modern techniques and the U.S. IN SPITE of regulations is forging ahead with plans to drill more.
Which is a quality of life issue, and an insidious tax which effects the costs of groceries, kids lunches, increases poverty, decreases jobs, and creates long term Recessions ~~ you should know this, Mr. Shapiro, more than anyone!!
Lower the price of gas to a 1.50, and the economy will grow, jobs will grow. Will the environmentalists be happy? No. But some inner city youth in Chicago and Boston and L.A. will get jobs, stop shooting each other over drugs, and the U.S. will remain the most prosperous and powerful example of Free Enterprise in the World.
Problems are solved when we look at these issues in their entirety.
I tweet at PronetworkBuild
edmeyer_able November 10th, 2014 at 13:08
Actually the price of gas is decreasing because of the glut of oil on the world market, the ‘modern techniques’ of which you speak are a cause of numerous environmental hazards and are more costly to use.
mea_mark November 10th, 2014 at 13:14
Dunn sounds like a professional, paid for, climate denier troll. He has his talking points lined with what the Koch brothers would like us to believe.
Stuart Shapiro November 10th, 2014 at 13:23
I actually agree with some of your points. Lower gas prices do help poorer people more than most. However, if I was going to pick a way to help the poor, I would prefer one that doesn’t hurt all of us (poor and rich) in the longer run.
mea_mark November 10th, 2014 at 13:39
Lower energy prices in general is good. With the cost of solar becoming truly competitive we can start using more renewables for energy and less oil and gas on fixed structures that don’t move. Using the oil and gas primarily for those things that require portable energy should decrease our need for it and help lower the cost.
Info on solar, some neat charts … http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/11/solar-energy-power-boom-charts
FrankenPC . November 16th, 2014 at 02:24
This ^^^. Lower energy costs AND a vibrant manufacturing sector turning out products like solar cells and wind turbines. It’s a win win. I can’t believe how hard legacy energy is fighting this. You would think they would be dumping tons of money in renewables to future proof their corporations.
mea_mark November 16th, 2014 at 10:28
Actually they are investing heavily in renewables, they are just doing it as quietly as possible. They just don’t want the public to realize what is really going on until they have a good control on future sources of energy and have maximized their profits on their previous investments.
FrankenPC . November 16th, 2014 at 12:42
Wow. That’s so very evil. No. They are corporations, it’s what they do. The evil parts are all the politicians who are acting like the bought and paid for messengers to do their dirty work.
edmeyer_able November 10th, 2014 at 14:06
So you commented on a liberal site and 1/2 your comment contains false info, was your only reason for commenting to drum up support for your blog or did you really want a conversation and were busted by the 1st person to reply?
Roctuna November 10th, 2014 at 21:43
Geez, we’ve been over this so many times. Lower energy costs will not create jobs. Disposable income in the hands of the middle class creates demand which creates jobs. Lowering costs without increasing demand and output just creates greater profits for business. A buck off a gallon of gas won’t decrease medical costs, or housing, or electricity, and would barely move the needle on food.
Spirit of America November 15th, 2014 at 08:35
It isn’t a single-thing-fixes-it-all thing. Lower oil costs, and gas, will help spur growth/jobs… more money in hands of poor/middle class and lower production cost of items(energy is single biggest cost of production).
What some folks need to do is quit looking for 1 single solution to a problem that is multifaceted… a little of this, a little of that and a little of this and then a solution becomes possible.
Roctuna November 15th, 2014 at 13:55
We agree on the need for a spectrum of solutions. Lonny Dunn was talking about gasoline, you’re talking about energy costs, two different things. Seems to me he was the one looking for magic solution.
Spirit of America November 15th, 2014 at 19:00
agreed
burqa November 20th, 2014 at 01:56
He wants soshulism in the form of the guvamint setting the price of gas.
FrankenPC . November 16th, 2014 at 02:22
Well. IMO, If we were dealing with a rational economy…I might agree. But we aren’t. Corporations will jack prices up at any available opportunity. Lower the gas prices and they’ll find some other way to increase profits to compensate. Corporations collude to do so. There’s no such thing as free market competition when you get to a big enough size.
As far as the effect on low income earners, yeah. There is a definite benefit. But then you get into a major global resource problem which is this: the actual legitimate cost of extracting, refining, shipping, and dealing with the environmental problems is being sent through a virtual time machine into the future where someone else is supposed to deal with the ramifications. Right? Who cares what the ramifications are if I won’t see them in my lifetime is the mantra.
At what point do we stop doing that? Or do you think it’s a good idea to never deal with actual costs and just keep attempting to shunt them forward in time? When you get right down to it, isn’t that really why climate change denial is so strong? Because admitting it’s real means we have to stop forwarding responsibility. Corporations REALLY don’t want to do that.
Matt Dillon November 18th, 2014 at 12:35
The lower gas prices are hurting the economy, it needs to stop!
burqa November 20th, 2014 at 01:55
We-ell, by your own words, regulation is not driving up costs. Indeed, it appears you are saying they are not a factor.
But what you are missing is a lot of the oil we are extracting is not so much due to new techniques as much as it is due to the rise in prices making it profitable for deposits identified over 50 years ago to be mined.
I have first-hand knowledge of this. I know of a particular area in northeast Arkansas where oil and natural gas deposits were identified over 50 years ago. To extract them was too costly until the cost rose to make it profitable. All along, the oil companies waited and finally came in several years ago when gas got over $3.00 a gallon. Then they came in, handed out big fat lease checks and didn’t need no new techniques. There’s nothing new about drilling a hole deeply.
There are many thousands of other fields they identified decades ago but are not attempting to drill. Either they need the price to go up more or they don’t want to glut the market and drive the price down even more.
Lower the cost of gas to $1.50 as you suggest (how, if not through socialistic governmental interference in the market?) and you’ll kill a lot of domestic production because here it is deeper and in smaller fields, compared to Saudi Arabia, where they practically have sweet crude coming up in the cups on their golf courses.
Those many thousands of already identified deposits will not be extracted because of the low price and we’ll go back to bringing in a lot more foreign oil, which means staying tied to protecting our supply lines. This means being caught between people who won’t stop fighting each other and who drag us in the middle of their mess.
Oh, and when the price of gas was $1.50, inner city youth in Boston, Chicago and L.A. were shooting each other.
No, really, they were!
edmeyer_able November 10th, 2014 at 12:04
It was so disheartening to see the turnout of the people who could have changed things for the better. 2016 is too far off and the damage the r’s are about to cause to the quality of life maybe irreversible. It’s getting really tiring to fight for a cleaner world when so few seem to care.
burqa November 20th, 2014 at 00:41
Well said.
This is happening because the leadership of the Democratic Party is weak, we’v run weak candidates with weak campaigns.
After 2 midterm butt-kickings we need to shake things up and get people to replace Pelosi, Reid, whoever at the DNC is in charge and whoever coordinates campaigns at the national level.
We need new leadership at the state level, too.
These jokers the GOP got in there could have been beaten had we not been so inept in so many races.
edmeyer_able November 10th, 2014 at 13:04
It was so disheartening to see the turnout of the people who could have changed things for the better. 2016 is too far off and the damage the r’s are about to cause to the quality of life maybe irreversible. It’s getting really tiring to fight for a cleaner world when so few seem to care.
burqa November 20th, 2014 at 01:41
Well said.
This is happening because the leadership of the Democratic Party is weak, we’v run weak candidates with weak campaigns.
After 2 midterm butt-kickings we need to shake things up and get people to replace Pelosi, Reid, whoever at the DNC is in charge and whoever coordinates campaigns at the national level.
We need new leadership at the state level, too.
These jokers the GOP got in there could have been beaten had we not been so inept in so many races.
Kick Frenzy November 10th, 2014 at 13:39
F*** your Earth!
I’m Republican, bitch!
Kick Frenzy November 10th, 2014 at 14:39
F*** your Earth!
I’m Republican, bitch!
Jones November 10th, 2014 at 14:29
Profit is more important…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hy36t8p2Hfk#t=19
Jones November 10th, 2014 at 15:29
Profit is more important…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hy36t8p2Hfk#t=19
eyelashviper November 10th, 2014 at 17:47
Save the planet, dump a Goper (in a hazardous dump site only please).
eyelashviper November 10th, 2014 at 18:47
Save the planet, dump a Goper (in a hazardous dump site only please).