Obama And the White House Reject Costly Ozone Regulations

But what about “the environment”? Economics are meaningless compared to Mother Earth, aren’t they? And anyway, there’s no connection between wealth and clean, healthy environments.

Well, the enviro-friendly White House seems to be rethinking that edict, as is usually the case whenever the rubber meets the road:

White House Rejects Controversial Ozone Regs

President Barack Obama on Friday asked the Environmental Protection Agency to withdraw a proposed regulation for ozone air quality standards, citing the nation’s wobbly economy.

President Obama, in a statement, said that by requesting withdrawal of the ozone regulations “I have continued to underscore the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty, particularly as our economy continues to recover.”

A passenger enters a Kansas City Metro bus that warns of an Ozone Alert in Kansas City, Missouri, last month.

The EPA’s ozone rule has been among the more controversial regulations proposed by the environmental agency. Republicans and industry groups say the rule would be too costly to implement and lead to a slowdown in economic growth. Earlier this week, House Republicans said they would hold a vote this winter on a bill to prevent its implementation.

(Link)



1 Comment

  • JJ

    February 1, 2012

    You mention “there is no connection between wealth and clean, healthy environments.” What data or regression analysis (research) did you look at to make such a strong statement? Also, when you think about costs and benefits, does it not help to think in terms of short v. long term? If you ignore the costs in the short-run it is possible that it will multiply in the long run. Furthermore, if you pass on the cost to a bystander, how is that a “fair and free” system, which you seem to adhere to.

    I disagree with you, but appreciate the writings and the debate.

    JJ

Leave A Response

* Denotes Required Field