EPA Rolls Over Like A Dog...Again
...the administration approach was based on a more favorable balance between projected costs to industry and projected health benefits. He (Stephen Johnson) said the Jeffords and Carper bills were too expensive, even though they would generate greater savings in health care costs.In other words, the EPA likes the Bush approach (the so-called "Clear Skys" proposal) because it's cheaper for industry, period!
Here are the numbers:
Using the impact of various proposals by 2010 as an example, the E.P.A. estimated that the administration plan would cost $2.8 billion in spending for new emission controls and generate up to $78 billion in reduced health care costs. The Carper bill would cost industry $10.5 billion and create health care savings of up to $128 billion, and the Jeffords bill would cost industry $41.1 billion with projected health care savings of up to $162 billion.Note how conveniently the EPA has left out the potential savings...in lives! And here's the really pernicious part. The net savings to the US of the Jefford's bill is over $110B, as compared to Clear Skys where the net savings $76B, but of course the burden in the latter falls heavily on the energy industry and is recovered in the health industry.
Maybe the ENVIRONMENTAL(!) (P)rotection (A)gency should rename itself the (E)nergy-Industry (P)rotection (A)gency. They wouldn't even have to change their logo, just their charter.