As the economy remains stuck and the presidential campaign season opens, how environmental regulations affect jobs will be a hot-button issue in numerous races and debates. The New York Times article below is, in our view, a good place to start the discussion.  What do you think?  Have federal and state environmental regulations harmed the economy?  Should new proposals be put on ice until job growth picks up? Should existing regulations be rolled back to spark an economic recovery?  If so, which ones?  Use the comment box at the bottom of the post to share your thoughts. If one isn’t visible, click on the tiny ‘comments ‘link.
—————————————————————————————————

      A Debate Arises on Job Creation and Environment

By MOTOKO RICH and JOHN BRODER
Published: September 4, 2011

Do environmental regulations kill jobs?

Republicans and business groups say yes, arguing that environmental protection is simply too expensive for a battered economy. They were quick to claim victory Friday after the Obama administration abandoned stricter ozone pollution standards.

Many economists agree that regulation comes with undeniable costs that can affect workers. Factories may close because of the high cost of cleanup, or owners may relocate to countries with weaker regulations.

But many experts say that the effects should be assessed through a nuanced tally of costs and benefits that takes into account both economic and societal factors. Some argue that the costs can be offset as companies develop cheaper ways to clean up pollutants, and others say that regulation is often blamed for job losses that occur for different reasons, like a stagnant economy. As companies develop new technologies to cope with regulatory requirements, some new jobs are created.

What’s more, some economists say, previous regulations, like the various amendments to the Clean Air Act, have resulted in far lower costs and job losses than industrial executives initially feared.

For example, when the Environmental Protection Agency first proposed amendments to the Clean Air Act aimed at reducing acid rain caused by power plant emissions, the electric utility industry warned that they would cost $7.5 billion and tens of thousands of jobs. But the cost of the program has been closer to $1 billion, said Dallas Burtraw, an economist at Resources for the Future, a nonprofit research group on the environment. And the E.P.A., in a paper published this year, cited studies showing that the law had been a modest net creator of jobs through industry spending on technology to comply with it.

The question of just how much environmental regulation hurts jobs is a particularly delicate one as leaders in Washington debate the best ways to address the nation’s stubbornly high unemployment rate. As President Obama prepares for an important speech on Thursday focusing on job creation, Republicans are pushing for a rollback in environmental regulations that they say saddle companies with onerous costs that curtail jobs without leading to significant improvement in environmental or public health.

Leaders of environmental and public health groups arrived at the White House Friday morning for what was supposed to be a look-ahead at the fall energy and environment agenda.

What they got instead was a rude awakening.

Lisa Jackson gets a taste of what it was like for fellow New Jersey resident Christie Whitman to serve as EPA Administrator during the Bush administration.