Share This Page

Junk in EPA's trunk: Faux analysis

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency soft-pedals rigorous analysis showing its policies kill growth and jobs while trumpeting as truth junk analysis portraying burdensome regulations as economically beneficial.

A new National Taxpayers Union ( ntu.org ) study makes the mendacity clear: The EPA publicly proclaims bogus findings from its second report on the Clean Air Act's costs and benefits that fit its anti-growth agenda -- but is mum about that report's contradictory findings of economic harm.

The EPA loves to talk about that report's cost-benefit analysis projecting up to $2 trillion in annual economic benefits by 2020 from air quality regulations. But that's based on surveys of people's "willingness to pay" to avoid slightly greater health risks -- not on anything that actually adds to economic output or employment.

The agency would rather not talk about the report's macroeconomic analysis. It says such regulations cut Gross Domestic Product in 2010 by $32 billion to $79 billion and could result by 2020 in anything from a $110 billion loss to a $5 billion gain -- far smaller than that highly suspect $2 trillion in "benefits."

No agency should base public policy on junk analysis serving anti-growth ideology -- but the out-of-control EPA does.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.