Saunders 1

Brian Saunders
Dr. Rios
Enc 1102
20 June 2014
Economic Restraints of Global warming
Global warming has become an issue lately as it has been debated by both those that
believe that it's happening and those that don't. With so many potential adverse effects facing
our economy and our environment, the issue of global warming has created a sharp divide
between those who feel the need to do something about it and those who feel that global
warming simply doesn't. With such large issues in play, such as economic restraints of regulation
of the energy industry, the need to address global warming or "climate change" is a very
important issue in our society and must be dealt with one-way or the other. The following works
will give us a look at some of the different affects that global warming has had and could have
on our lives.

"Double Whammy: EPA Carbon Regulations Will Mean Higher Electricity Costs, Fewer
Jobs." U.S Chamber of Commerce. Sean Hackbarth. 28 May 2014.
After the latest round of proposed EPA carbon emissions regulations, we have to ask ourselves,
what are the costs of ever tightening regulations of the nation's energy companies? Sean
Hackbarth of freeenterprise.com lays out some gloomy facts about the negative side affects of
further carbon emissions regulations. He states that the newest round of proposed restrictions to
specifically the coal industry will cost 400,000 jobs, over 50 billion dollars in annual gdp, and
increase electricity costs by almost 300 billion dollars. He says Americans deserve to have an
[Last Name] 2


accurate picture of the costs and benefits associated with the administration's plans to reduce
carbon dioxide emissions through unprecedented and aggressive EPA regulations. This is an
entirely accurate statement because although climate change has struck fear into the hearts of
many, they may not consider the true economic consequences they will likely face as a result of
ever tightening energy regulations.

"Carbon regulations under consideration by the EPA could have a negative impact on the
U.S. economy." Econostats. Wayne Winegarden PhD. 7 November 2013.
Wayne Winegarden has a PhD. in Economics and has 20 years of experience in the field and has
been an advisor to various fortune 500 companies. In the EconoStats page by George Mason
University he lists a few of the costs of further EPA regulations of the coal industry. "In order for
the proposed regulations to have a meaningful impact on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, it
must (by definition) reduce the amount of output from coal fired power plants. If mandated via
regulations, the reduction of energy output will raise energy prices and create a self-inflicted
energy supply shock." Trying to impose heavy and sudden regulations on the energy industry
will no doubt have a terrible affect on an already fragile economy. Dr. Winegarden points out
that "Americas Power.org estimates that coal generated electricity contributes over $1 trillion in
gross economic output to the U.S. economy. The U.S. economy is heavily dependent on coal.
Policies that unnecessarily raise the price of coal hurt consumers, businesses and the overall
economy." I just don't think most people are considering these issues, it's as if some folk just
think electricity makes itself and take for granted how cheap it is due to our abundant supply of
coal.

[Last Name] 3


"EPA Rules Would Cost 1.5 Million Jobs, Industry Group Says." Environmental Leader.
30 October 2012.
In this report a special interest group known as "National Economic Research Associates"
conducted on behalf of the "American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity." The report
highlighted that 7 new EPA regulations involving mercury and air toxins will cost the U.S.
approximately 1.5 million jobs over the next four years. The report goes on to point out that "The
analysis found compliance costs for the electric sector could total between $198 billion to $220
billion from 2013 to 2034 and average $15 billion to $16.7 billion a year. Peak year compliance
costs could total $36 billion to $44 billion." This is a huge sum of money to spend on trying to
solve an issue that may be unsolvable or possibly isn't even a man made issue to begin with.

"Some Things to Know About Obama's New EPA Regulations." townhall.com. Katie
Pavlich. 2 June 2014.
In this article, the newest proposed EPA regulations are scrutinized by New York Times best
selling author Katie Pavlich. She first shows what the EPA claims the newest regulations will
accomplish. According to the EPA "Average temperatures have risen in most states since 1901,
with seven of the top 10 warmest years on record occurring since 1998. Climate and weather
disasters in 2012 cost the American economy more than $100 billion." But they don't say how
they can be sure that their proposed changes will stop these weather patterns and they aren't
focused enough on the economic impacts to those who can least afford it. According to Arizona
Representative Paul Gosar, ""The bottom line is that this new rule will kill good-paying jobs in
rural communities throughout the country. In Arizona, this proposal will likely force the Navajo
Generating Station to close its doors, which will mean the permanent loss of nearly a 1,000
[Last Name] 4


good-paying jobs." We shouldn't be killing today's jobs for the people who need them the most
for a problem that we don't fully understand. It is great for politicians to talk about but it can
have catastrophic consequences for average working Americans.

"No, EPA's New Regulations Are Not Going to Make the Poor Poorer."
ClimateProgress. Jeff Spross. 5 June 2014
This article takes that side that tighter are in fact needed. The author claims that the affect on the
economy due to the new proposed regulations by the EPA will in fact be very minimal. He states
that the reduction in emissions will improve the overall health and productivity of workers,
"There are also myriad health benefits to be had from EPAs new regulations. Coal plants dont
just pump out carbon dioxide; they also release a wealth of other pollutants that drive up
everything from asthma attacks to heart disease for people in the immediate vicinity. And poor
and minority Americans face the bulk of those detrimental effects." He does not provide specific
evidence of this but at the same time does provide evidence of the monetary effect on the same
folks who will be hurt the most by the proposed regulations. "Specifically, EPAs Regulatory
Impact Analysis (RIA) estimated total compliance costs for the economy would range around
$5.5 billion per year (in 2011 dollars) by 2020, and $7.3 to $8.8 billion in 2030. Baker pointed
out those numbers would amount to only $45 per household per year in 2020, and $65 in 2030."
This quote lays out the lunacy of his argument, the poor will only be effected by a few dollars
per year. I don't know what poor means to him but to me it means that a poor person is someone
who really cannot afford to spend even a little more money.

[Last Name] 5


Botkin, Daniel B. "Heatstroke: Nature in an Age of Global Warming." BioScience. Vol.
60 No. 10 (2010). pp. 552-553.
In this article the author, Daniel B. Botkin, who has a Ph.D. in Biology and Plant Ecology and
teaches at UC Santa Barbra, examines a book written in 2009 about the effects of global
warming. He points out that in the book, the author Anthony D. Barnosky, makes some factual
mistakes in his writings. For example, "Since 1950, we have approximately doubled the amount
of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere." This is just one of many errors that Botkin points out
and explains how these errors could be very detrimental to the cause to try and slow global
warming.
I completely agree with the way Botkin approaches this book. Science is ever changing
and sometimes what we thought we knew turns out to be completely inaccurate. "For example,
he quotes Stephen Schneider's 1989 speculation that warmer tropical oceans would lead to more
and worse hurricanes, and then writes seventeen years later, in fact, Schneider's scenario proved
overly optimisticwhen Hurricane Katrina destroyed New Orleans. He tells the reader that
global warming caused that destruction. Today, few if any hurricane experts believe that
hurricanes will increase in number or intensity as Schneider had suggested." These are the types
of predictions that given enough time, will become self fulfilling prophecies and will be seen as
"proof" of global warming by some. Botkin cites many examples of the inaccuracies of this book
which have been passed off as undeniable facts and when these mistakes are exposed it can be a
huge blow to public perception of the matter. Without the support of the masses, any effort to
reduce carbon emissions is destined to fail because if there is no personal incentive for
individuals to cut back on their beloved gas guzzling s.u.v's, why would they do it? Especially if
they find a reason to question the validity of the science behind global warming.
[Last Name] 6



Cover, Matt. "EPA Global Warming Regulations Could Send Economy Back Into
Recession, Report Says." cnsnews.com. (2011). <www.cnsnews.com>
In this article the author has amassed numerous quotes from members of congress who oppose
tighter emissions regulations. This would imply that contrary to the above article, not everyone
seems to be on board about the legitimacy of global warming. The simple fact is that the EPA is
trying to seize more power than it should have, and must be stopped, this is a good example of
how many Americans feel and I believe that ultimately we will only be hurting ourselves if we
start demanding the use of higher cost and less efficient energy sources.