6 ms·

Depends on how you measure success. If you care about the environment it’s a success. If you care about creating jobs for blue collar workers regardless of ho

Depends on how you measure success. If you care about the environment it’s a success. If you care about creating jobs for blue collar workers regardless of how it impacts the environment then it was a relative failure.

maxxxxx 8y ago
How do you know that environmental regulation actually cost blue collar jobs? They always say that but what is based on?
- craftyguy 8y ago
  >They always say that but what is based on? Rhetoric from the current administration and 'news' agencies.
fzeroracer 8y ago
Putting it into a binary 'environment/jobs' is one of the more silly ways of attempting to measure the success of these regulations. Did mandating the removal of lead from gasoline affect businesses? Probably. But I imagine no one here would defend the use of leaded gasoline now knowing about the possible links between lead and crime. We should absolutely care about the environment because as it turns out, the environment affects the people and in turns affects our society.
r00fus 8y ago
False dichotomy https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/01/regulations-jobs/513563/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/01/regulat...
craftyguy 8y ago
That's an argument straight from the 1960s-1970s. Creating jobs 'at all costs' is definitely not the answer and should not even be an option.
Rizz 8y ago
What would create more jobs, running the same old coal power plant a couple more years or building a million new wind turbines? Or running the same old coal power plant or inventing, building and installing new filters and furnaces for existing plants? With the added benefit of having a great new technology to export and sell overseas if you're the world's first to have it (=require it)
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  Exactly. Maybe some companies would have higher cost but that money would flow to other companies making that equipment. In the end it may be a net positive.

maxxxxx 8y ago

How do you know that environmental regulation actually cost blue collar jobs? They always say that but what is based on?

craftyguy 8y ago
>They always say that but what is based on? Rhetoric from the current administration and 'news' agencies.

fzeroracer 8y ago

Putting it into a binary 'environment/jobs' is one of the more silly ways of attempting to measure the success of these regulations. Did mandating the removal of lead from gasoline affect businesses? Probably. But I imagine no one here would defend the use of leaded gasoline now knowing about the possible links between lead and crime. We should absolutely care about the environment because as it turns out, the environment affects the people and in turns affects our society.

r00fus 8y ago

False dichotomy https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/01/regulations-jobs/513563/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/01/regulat...

craftyguy 8y ago

That's an argument straight from the 1960s-1970s. Creating jobs 'at all costs' is definitely not the answer and should not even be an option.

Rizz 8y ago

What would create more jobs, running the same old coal power plant a couple more years or building a million new wind turbines? Or running the same old coal power plant or inventing, building and installing new filters and furnaces for existing plants? With the added benefit of having a great new technology to export and sell overseas if you're the world's first to have it (=require it)

maxxxxx 8y ago
Exactly. Maybe some companies would have higher cost but that money would flow to other companies making that equipment. In the end it may be a net positive.