2014 ndi 6ws-fitzmier, Lundberg, Abelkop Economy Disads Spending da

Aff—No Link—Experts

Regulations don’t impact the private sector—limited, non-lasting effect—prefer expert analysis

Undoubtedly those readers with adverse personal and professional experiences in the environmental regulatory process are shaking their heads in disbelief. Of course specific environmental regulations can and do have real effects on individual businesses and firms, specific industries, and even local communities. However, these economic effects are limited in scope and duration and are fewer in number than popular political mythology allows. They do not rise above the background noise of state economies either singly orcumulatively. Even if we accept the possibility that state environmentalism may increase the relative severity of recessions that impact is wiped out within a year or two of economic recovery. Consequently, those who hope to improve their state's business climate, economic competitiveness, and employment picture by rolling back environmental statutes are misinformed and are in for great disappointment. The evidence is compelling that this strategy will not produce any meaningful economic gains, while imposing real environmental losses.

Aff—Thumper—EPA Carbon Regs

EPA Pushing strict regulations now-rule to cut carbon emissions loom to cut back econ productivity

Dreiling 6/16/14 (Larry, Senior Field Editor at High Plains Journal, Various at Eagle Communications (formerly KAYS, Inc.), High Plains Journal, “EPA issues carbon emissions rule”,http://www.hpj.com/archives/2014/jun14/jun16/0606EPACarbonEmissionsLDsr.cfm#.U7xNlfldU1Y)

The Environmental Protection Agency on June 3 released a draft rule to regulate carbon emissions from hundreds of fossil-fired power plants across the United States. The proposed rule mandates that power plants cut U.S. carbon-dioxide emissions 30 percent by 2030 from levels seen in 2005. “That’s like canceling out annual carbon pollution from two-thirds of all cars and trucks in America,” EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said in speech at EPA headquarters announcing the rule. “And if you add up what we’ll avoid between now and 2030, it’s more than double the carbon pollution from every power plant in America in 2012.” The carbon framework EPA has drafted seeks what it says will be striking a balance between what environmentalists want—an ambitious overall target—with what the utility industry wants: flexibility, along with a long compliance timeline and an earlier base-year calculation from which to meet the goal. Carbon emissions have dropped since 2005, making the overall reduction smaller than it would have been if the EPA had used a more-recent year for a baseline. Burning coal is the cheapest and most abundant source—40 percent—of the nation’s electricity, but produces more carbon dioxide than oil and natural gas. The utility sector accounts for about one-third of U.S. total carbon emissions, according to EPA. On a conference call with the American Lung Association following McCarthy’s announcement, President Barack Obama touted the rule’s estimated public health benefits and pushed back against critics’ claim it would hurt the economy. He added it would actually help electricity users. “It provides a huge incentive for states and consumers to become more energy efficient,” Obama said. “As a result, your electricity bills will shrink as these standards will spur investment in energy efficiency and cutting waste.” The plan seeks to reduce 2005 emissions nationwide by an average of 25 percent by 2020 and 30 percent by 2030. However, the EPA is giving each state a goal based on the agency believes is achievable for that state, which takes into account progress individual states have made since 2005. For example, Kansas must reduce its carbon by 23 percent—based on pounds of carbon dioxide emitted per megawatt hour of electricity produced—over the next 15 years. That’s a relatively average percentage cut compared with other states that have fossil fuel intense economies, such as Arkansas, which must cut its emissions by 45 percent by 2030, or less intensive economies, such as Iowa, at 12 percent over the next 15 years. Other states in the region and the amount of carbon pollution needed to be reduced are: Colorado, 35 percent; Missouri, 13 percent; Nebraska, 23 percent; New Mexico, 34 percent; Oklahoma, 35 percent; South Dakota, 35 percent; and Texas, 39 percent. The nation’s two largest farm groups offered widely differing viewpoints on the plan. The American Farm Bureau Federation said EPA’s proposal will harm the nation’s economy, rural communities and America’s farm and ranch families, if implemented. “The EPA’s attempt to impose a 30 percent reduction in carbon dioxide on the nation’s power plants will lead to higher energy prices,” the AFBF statement said. “Farmers would face not just higher prices for electricity, but any energy-related input such as fertilizer. Rural electric cooperatives that rely on old coal plants for cheap electricity would be especially hard hit.” AFBF President Bob Stallman said: “U.S. agriculture will pay more for energy and fertilizer under this plan, but the harm won’t stop there. Effects will especially hit home in rural America.”

Aff—Thumper—Water Policy

EPA overstepping their jurisdiction-stricter regulations hurting business prosperity

Grave 6/13/14 (sam, U.S. Congressman for Minnesota’s 6th district, ”Expanded Clean Water Act Rules Hurt Small Business”, http://www.rollcall.com/news/expanded_clean_water_act_rules_hurt_small_business_commentary-233793-1.html)

Congress passed the Clean Water Act more than four decades ago to safeguard our nation’s major waterways. These rivers and other bodies of water are sources for drinking water and transportation, known as “navigable waters.” In my northern Missouri district, situated between the Missouri and Mississippi rivers, healthy rivers are absolutely essential to the local economy and farm communities. The Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers seem to be losing sight of their fundamental mission and instead are more concerned with expanding their own regulatory footprint. Under a newly proposed “Waters of the United States” rule, thousands of small streams, ditches, ponds and other isolated bodies of water, and lands near them, will be subject to federal jurisdiction and all the regulation, permitting and mitigation that entails. The consequences for millions of small businesses, farmers and local governments could be dire. Over the years, the agencies’ regulatory interpretation of CWA jurisdiction has been stretched further and further to include bodies of water that have little or no connection to waters that are used for traditional commerce. This proposed rule was touted as necessary to provide more clarity, but is doing the exact opposite by using vaguely defined terms that may be read to include small ponds, ditches or small streams that run only when there is heavy rain. And this extraordinary regulatory intrusion into the lives of many farmers, ranchers and small-business owners has the likely potential to be economically devastating. Recently, the Small Business Committee, which I chair, held a hearing and heard from small businesses that will be affected by the proposed rule. Alan Parks, an executive with a Memphis, Tenn., stone and gravel company explained the proposed rule’s problems and consequences for small businesses, stating, “The proposed rule has no clear line on what is ‘in’ and what is ‘out,’ making it very difficult for our industry and other businesses to plan new projects and make hiring decisions. If it is determined development of a site will take too long or cost too much in permitting or mitigation, we won’t move forward. That means a whole host of economic activity in a community will not occur — all of this in the name of protecting a ditch or farm pond.” While the proposed rule clearly has significant consequences for small businesses, the agencies failed to assess those impacts. Had the agencies conducted outreach to and solicited input from small businesses, as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, they may have identified and fixed some of the problems with the rule before it was proposed. My colleagues and I on the Small Business Committee have called on EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to withdraw the proposed rule and examine the real-world consequences of their rule on small businesses before they move forward. Although I appreciate the EPA’s recent decision to extend the comment period, it would be wiser still to withdraw the rule altogether, step back and thoroughly weigh the costs and economic consequences for small businesses.

Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2014
2014 -> For want of a nail
2014 -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014
2014 -> Ihbb asian Championships 2014 middle school bowl Round 4 First Quarter
2014 -> Ihbb european Championships 2014 Bowl Round 4 First Quarter
2014 -> International History Bee and Bowl 2013-14 Asian Division Question Set Bowl Round Six
2014 -> United states patent and trademark office
2014 -> Coffs harbour eisteddfod vocal syllabus
2014 -> Listen News Programs Schedule pledge now
2014 -> Slow club announce third album complete surrender

Download 0.74 Mb.

Share with your friends: