2014 ndi 6ws-fitzmier, Lundberg, Abelkop Economy Disads Spending da
Download 0.74 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Aff—Regulations Turn—Data
- Aff—Regulations Turn—Uncertainty
Aff—Regulations Turn—IndustriesEnvironment protection stimulates the economy—creates compliance industries, improves marketsSpringston 12 (Rex Springston ,“Report: Environmental regulations don't hurt the economy”, Times Dispatch, 1/3/12, http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/report-environmental-regulations-don-t-hurt-the-economy/article_7d21a620-dfd4-5a99-b26d-45c0504b110e.html) Environmental regulations do not hurt the economy, according to a new report released today by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.¶ Putting limits on bay pollution will not only help the bay but will also stimulate job growth as people work on improving sewage-treatment plants and similar projects, said the report, entitled "Debunking the 'Job Killer' Myth."¶ "For years, opponents of environmental regulations have argued that they cost jobs and hurt businesses. That is not borne out by the facts," said the bay foundation's president, William C. Baker, in a statement.¶ William M. Shobe, a University of Virginia environmental economist who was not involved in the report, said the relationship between environmental regulations and the economy is "a little bit complicated."¶ Well-designed regulations encourage cleanups by businesses and sewage plants that release pollution, which hurts people or the environment, but don't pay for it, Shobe said.¶ Spending to comply with new regulations — say, adding new pollution controls — can aid the economy, Shobe said. "If regulations are well-designed and appropriate, they should create more benefits than costs."¶ In one example, Shobe said, "we know that better water quality results in higher property values near the bay. There have been plenty of studies to show that."¶ To avoid being onerous, regulations should give businesses flexibility in solving their problems, Shobe said.¶ The new report cited the 1990 amendments to the federal Clean Air Act as just one case in which opponents said the tighter air-pollution limits would hurt businesses. Ultimately, the benefits far outweighed costs, the report said.¶ Shobe said most experts agree that, "on net, the clean-air rules have had a positive economic contribution." But poorly designed regulations can create more costs than benefits, he said. Aff—Regulations Turn—DataPrefer our evidence—international data proves our claimsVassilopoulos 99 (Michalis, IPTS Seville, April 1999, “Industrial Competitiveness and Environmental Regulation: Final Report,” http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/AppendixS2.pdf) To sum up, while there is little evidence to support the hypothesis that environmental policy leads to a loss of comparative advantage or industrial flight to pollution havens (Jaffe et al., 1995), and there is little statistical support for the revisionist view that regulation improves competitiveness and therefore should be tightened, there is evidence to suggest that environmental regulation has a positive impact on jobs (OECD, 1997). The net effect, balancing job losses through regulation with job gains in the environmental technology and services industries, is positive. National estimates for the USA, Germany and France show that environment-related employment accounts for 3 per cent, 1.9 per cent and 1.6 per cent of the labour force respectively. The evidence on adverse effects, based on plant closures, suggests that these are relatively rare. Aff—Regulations Turn—UncertaintyWe access short term turns—a lack of federal green action sparks private sector uncertainty—turns the DALefton & Caperton 10 (Rebecca Lefton, Senior Policy Analyst at American Progress, specializing in international climate change policy and sustainable development, Richard W. Caperton, Director of Clean Energy Investment at Center for American Progress, “Climate Change Is Bad for BusinessClimate Change Is Bad for Business”, Center for American Progress, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2010/08/20/8279/climate-change-is-bad-for-business/) Climate-related disasters like we’ve seen across the world and at home will inevitably harm American businesses. That’s why the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which is tasked with making sure that investors are aware of an investment’s risks, has made it clear for the first time that climate change will have a sizeable impact on some businesses’ profits.¶ The SEC warned in a guidance issued this spring that, “Significant physical effects of climate change, such as effects on the severity of weather (for example, floods or hurricanes), sea levels, the arability of farmland, and water availability and quality, have the potential to affect a registrant’s operations and results.” Investors who rely on this information should expect to see more companies disclosing climate-related risks as climate change’s effects become more evident.¶ Investors are also paying more attention to climate change when choosing their portfolios. This year investors filed a record 101 resolutions urging 88 U.S. and Canadian companies to address the risks and opportunities climate change poses.¶ Businesses are suffering from an uncertain policy environment as well. This is true of both traditional energy companies, who need certainty to guide their investments, and clean energy companies, who will help the United States transition to a low-carbon economy.¶ The United States is losing out on billions of dollars in clean energy investments by sitting on the sidelines of the clean energy race. Deutsche Bank recently decided to spend the majority of its climate change capital in Europe and China where there are “government policies that provide transparency, longevity and certainty.”¶ Kevin Parker, global head of Deutsche Bank’s Asset Management Division, says the United States is missing out because it’s “asleep at the wheel on climate change, asleep at the wheel on job growth, asleep at the wheel on this industrial revolution taking place in the energy industry.” That’s why out of the nearly $7 billion in green investments that Deutsche Bank holds, only $45 million originated in the United States. American companies have formed a new Chambers for Innovation and Clean Energy advocating for a market-based solution to climate change precisely because they recognize the vast economic benefits their country is losing.¶ The upshot is that all U.S. companies—those that need to avoid climate disasters, that want investment certainty, and that want to unleash economic growth—stand to gain from a climate bill. A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency analysis finds that passing a climate bill will result in fewer emissions and lower the risk of catastrophic climate change. Moreover, the Peterson Institute for International Economics shows that passing a climate bill will stimulate the economy, create jobs, and make businesses healthier.¶ The bottom line is that U.S. businesses are being affected by climate-related disasters and will face more of them in the future. Congressional delay in passing climate and energy legislation hurts businesses by allowing global warming to go unheeded, and it also creates an unfriendly environment for companies waiting to win in the clean energy race. 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:
|