It is generally the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that is involved in regulatory disputes. Costing issues were discussed in Costing Environmental Regulation. Rules designed to provide better health outcomes have compelling advantages, but it is difficult to turn them into compelling cost savings mechanisms. A lost job in hand is much more easily visualized than the financial benefit to the nation from a person who one day might not get sick or die because of pollution.
An article in Businessweek by Elizabeth Dwoskin and Mark Drajem provides us with another way to view this conflict. They remind us that one organization’s cost is often another organization’s stimulus package.
That is the view we are fed by our mainstream news outlets. But this is what the makers of the equipment required to meet the environmental standards have to say.
This balancing of job losses and gains seems to be a persistent phenomenon.
Anything that drives the development of new technologies will usually have spin-off developments that will be beneficial in other areas—and if large numbers of jobs are created—so much the better.
There are at least two sides to every argument, we must be careful to avoid listening to just one side.