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.

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.

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)

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.

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

>They always say that but what is based on?

Rhetoric from the current administration and 'news' agencies.

False dichotomy

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/01/regulat...