If you've no account register here first time
User Name :
User Email :
Password :

Login Now
Emerging Technologies in Learning
Sponsored By: UL EHS Sustainability

Avoid the RFP Trap: The Smart Guide to Purchasing EHS Software
Sponsored By: VelocityEHS

Stormwater Management Programs: How to Integrate New Technologies to Improve Processes and Operations
Sponsored By: VelocityEHS

GHS Label Guide
Sponsored By: VelocityEHS


2 thoughts on “Why Manufacturers are Concerned About the Clean Power Plan

  1. Although I don’t doubt for a minute that the EPA underestimates the costs associated with their CO2 emission reduction plan, is also unfair to say that it’s going to cost the US $366 billion over 15 years because I assume that manufacturers and power plants alike continue to use fossil fuels at their current rates.

    One of the benefits of the EPA’s CO2 emission reduction plan is that it provides a financial incentive to the business community to transition over to renewable energy and away from the burning of fossil fuels, coal in particular.

  2. The National association of Manufacturers (NAM) is simply repeating it’s standard knee-jerk response to EPA proposals. But the fact of the matter is, that the industry will not be significantly adversely affected; and furthermore the industry needs to acknowledge it’s part in creating the environmental problems being addressed and it needs to shoulder it’s part of the cost to fix those problems – period. After all, does the industry use a portion of Earth’s natural resources? Does it contribute to pollution? The obvious answers are “YES” – and therefore, the industry has a responsibility to clean up it’s act. We, the public, suffer as long as the industry continues to ‘freeload’ as they currently do.
    Check out these old EL links: https://www.environmentalleader.com/2007/06/22/industries-criticize-epas-proposed-clean-air-rules/ and https://www.environmentalleader.com/2014/11/28/smog-rule-released/. These were NAM knee-jerk reactions related to “EPA’s proposed standards [that] seek to reduce ozone levels from 84 parts per billion … to between 70 and 75 parts per billion”; and they both contains nearly identical protests from industry groups. Back then, the NAM claimed that the proposed rule would have a “very detrimental impact on manufacturing employment”. And this more recent EL link contains more NAM bleatings that are similarly without foundation in any truth: https://www.environmentalleader.com/2014/08/01/nera-study-predicts-high-costs-for-proposed-ozone-regulations/. Does any of this NAM nonsense sound familiar after having read the article of today?
    The same ‘chicken little‘ is again claiming that the sky will now fall due to the new EPA proposal to reduce smog.
    If anybody is willing to believe this new ‘falling sky’ refrain, I have a bridge to sell.

Leave a Comment

Translate »