Skip this site's navigation and go to its main content


Receive Updates From Heritage

Receive Updates From Heritage

The Heritage Foundation
Leadership for America

Our Vision

Building an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society flourish.

About The Heritage Foundation

Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. We believe the principles and ideas of the American Founding are worth conserving and renewing. As policy entrepreneurs, we believe the most effective solutions are consistent with those ideas and principles.


Regulations of Mass Job Destruction

Posted October 16th, 2008 at 3:33pm in Energy and Environment 2 Print This Post Print This Post

Bloomberg is reporting Barack Obama “will classify carbon dioxide as a dangerous pollutant that can be regulated.” As we have reported repeatedly in the past, such a decision would trigger numerous regulatory actions pursuant to the Clean Air Act and empower the Environmental Protection Agency to centrally plan the entire economy.

Since the EPA published its proposed carbon capping plan this summer, the Heritage’s Center for Data Analysis has been using the widely respected Global Insight’s U.S. Macroeconomic Model of the American economy to estimate the economic impacts of CO2 regulations. CDA’s report is not yet finalized, but so far it has found that a decision by a future administration to regulate carbon pursuant to the Clean Air Act would:

  • Reduce aggregate gross domestic product by $6.9 trillion by 2029.
  • Reduce employment in the manufacturing sector by 2.9 million jobs by 2029.
  • Reduce employment in:
    • Mining by 7.4%;
    • Transportation and warehousing by 17%;
    • Durable manufacturing by 28%;
    • Textile mills by 28%;
    • Paper and paper products by 36%;
    • Plastics and rubber products by 54%;
    • Machinery manufacturing by 57%.

The study measures only the likely impacts through 2029, at which point CO2 will have been cut by 31% below the 2005 level. The ultimate CO2 reduction target will likely exceed 70% by 2050. This will add much more to the total economic burden of the regulation.

Tell the EPA what you think of their carbon capping plans here.

Tags: , , , ,

2 Responses to “Regulations of Mass Job Destruction”

  1. Thomas Gray, South Carolina on at said:

    Energy Plan. Draft.

    Solar and wind are currently being manufactured useing FF and thus the cost must increase to provide these products,, IF we use atom power to manufacture these products we will not be dependant on outside energy support that many now realize we are critically dependent on today.

    At the least we are going to need some diplomicy if we cannot vote down carbon caps. I think they will become a lesser issue as all manufacturing / transportation begins a forced decline and the ensuing job losses that we are now seeing.

    Tom.

  2. Guy Arnold on at said:

    CO2 is used in so many things we utilize in life the EPA will kill ouir national defence if CO2 is removed from out industrial use in the USA.

    http://WWW.oilanswerman.com

Leave a Comment

In order to leave a comment, you must supply information for all of the required fields below (which are indicated by bold text).

Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.