Obama-Friendly Study: New EPA Regulations Are Cheaper Than The Cost Of Bad Weather


Because bad weather will happen only if the President doesn’t get his way, automakers will be financially better off just biting the bullet and accepting the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new proposals to curb carbon emissions.

That’s the logical conclusion of a new study commissioned by a trade group with close ties to the Administration of President Barack Obama.

Business Forward, founded in 2009 by a gaggle of Democratic consultants, played its part in the Obama Administration’s climate change drama this week by releasing the new study, which assures American manufacturers that the shared cost of making bad weather go away is nothing compared to the cost of doing nothing.

The study presumes, of course, that industry’s embrace of EPA policy will act as a soothing balm for otherwise-inevitable devastation. Using the automotive sector as a case in point, Business Forward predicts financial mayhem if we don’t curb coal-fired emissions:

The results of the report are striking in two ways.

First, the potential cost of higher electricity rates (adding $7 to the cost of producing a $30,000 car) is quite small, while the cost of weather-related shutdowns is enormous ($1,250,000 per hour). Like most manufacturers, automakers spend less than 1% of their budgets on electricity, which means that if it costs them $100 to manufacture a part today, the EPA’s standards could eventually add 6 cents.

Second, American manufacturers rely on supply chains that are increasingly large, specialized, global and fast. The very characteristics that make them efficient also make them interdependent, and this interdependence is what makes them susceptible to severe weather. Climate change is disrupting our ports, highways, bridges, and rails — and, because producers come from all over the world, severe weather in Asia affects us, too.

An alternate view would suggest that severe weather affects infrastructure in general, and the world has never had as much infrastructure — much of it along waterways and coasts where the vicissitudes of nature toyed with sparse populations long before they burgeoned into sophisticated population and production centers — as it has now. When people put stuff like factories, sewer systems and bridges where there used to be grass and trees, weather tends to amplify mankind’s perception of the power of weather to devastate.

The Obama Administration and apologists like Business Forward take that a step further by adding a massive dose of hubris: If the weather is doing bad things to people, then it’s ultimately up to people to change it. And those who don’t wish to mount such a Quixotic, gargantuan effort, or who question the need or efficacy of doing so, are themselves bad people.

Nowhere does the Business Forward report (full download here) make any attempt to relate the desired outcomes of the newly proposed Obama EPA rules with actual weather. Instead, with progressive hubris at full sail, it simply assumes that EPA policies will fix all the global weather-related problems it attempts to urgently present:

About $60 of the $100 parts suppliers and automakers spend on electricity (per car) is consumed at the final assembly plant. If those costs rise 6.2 percent in 2020, as result of the EPA’s new standards, the assembly line’s cost (per car) rises $3.72. The cost of electricity for an entire shift (8 hours) rises about $1,860. By comparison, if a plant has the typical downtime cost ($1,250,000 per hour), the cost of losing an entire shift is $10,000,000.

If a plant assembles 300,000 vehicles each year, the increase in the plant’s annual electricity-related costs ($1,116,000) is less than the cost of losing less than an hour of production time.

This past winter, several assembly plants lost days of production to severe weather.

This, of course, will only come to an end if the EPA is allowed to curb domestic carbon emissions from American coal-fired power plants.

Now that’s hubris.

Personal Liberty

Ben Bullard

Reconciling the concept of individual sovereignty with conscientious participation in the modern American political process is a continuing preoccupation for staff writer Ben Bullard. A former community newspaper writer, Bullard has closely observed the manner in which well-meaning small-town politicians and policy makers often accept, unthinkingly, their increasingly marginal role in shaping the quality of their own lives, as well as those of the people whom they serve. He argues that American public policy is plagued by inscrutable and corrupt motives on a national scale, a fundamental problem which individuals, families and communities must strive to solve. This, he argues, can be achieved only as Americans rediscover the principal role each citizen plays in enriching the welfare of our Republic.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.