Tom Reed on Environmental Protection

OB-TJ207_frack0_G_20120614101701Tom Reed writes:

This week, the House Manufacturing Caucus heard from panelists regarding proposed changes to the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Air Standards Act and the impact that these proposed changes would have on manufacturing industries across the country.

Who were these panelists? Reed doesn’t say. It is safe to assume that environmentalists were not included in “a variety of manufacturing industry leaders.”

“All Americans agree on the importance of clean air. No one wants to go back to the days of orange skies. However, it is vital, as policy makers, we develop a common sense approach between environmental protections and our economy,” said Manufacturing Caucus Co-Chair Congressman Tom Reed. “If we fail to understand some of the trade-offs, we run the risk of harming our economy or our environment, and really both.”

While Reed’s meaning is obscure, by “common sense” he likely means at no cost to business interests. How environmental regulations, however stringent, might hurt the environment isn’t clear.

In December 2014, the EPA proposed tightening the National Ambient Air Quality standards (NAAQS), part of the Clean Air Standards Act, making the new regulations the most stringent ever. The standards measure the amount of certain types of allowable air pollution which are considered harmful to public health and the environment.

However, the new standard could be the most costly regulation to ever be implemented in the United States. According to a February 2015 study by NERA Economic Consulting commissioned by National Association of Manufacturers, the regulation could cost the U.S. economy roughly $140 billion in lost Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per year. The potential labor market impacts represent an average annual loss of employment income equivalent to 1.4 million jobs.

So if manufacturers have to clean up their act, they will compensate by laying off enough employees to make up the cost? I think not.

The Caucus heard reaction to this regulation from a variety of manufacturing industry leaders and the Congressional Research Service to learn more about the challenges that they will face if the proposed rules are adopted. Concerns included the EPA’s own delays in implementing the original rules, lack of available technologies to meet the new standards and the lack of delineation between ambient air pollution and pollution generated by manufacturing facilities.

Ultimately, panelists called on Congress to act to prevent the regulatory changes.

Who would have guessed that Reed and his panelists oppose clean air regulations? The idea of balancing the cost of regulations against their effectiveness seems reasonable, but the balancing should not be biased toward low cost or no cost. There was likely no balance at all on Reed’s panel.

The CRS report cited below gives cost estimates on page 14. The benefits are listed on the same page:

  • 2,200 nonfatal heart attacks
  • 6,600 hospital and emergency room visits
  • 2,980 cases of acute or chronic bronchitis
  • 44,000 cases of upper and lower respiratory symptoms
  • 23,000 cases of aggravated asthma
  • 770,000 days when people miss work or school
  • 2.6 million days when people must restrict their activities

Is it “common sense” to block environmental regulations at the behest of manufacturers? Evidently it is from Tom Reed’s perspective.

Click to access R43092.pdf


About whungerford

* Contributor at where we discuss the politics, economics, and events of the New New York 23rd Congressional District (Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Chemung, (Eastern) Ontario, Schuyler, Seneca, Steuben,Tioga, Tompkins, and Yates Counties) Please visit and comment on whatever strikes your fancy.
This entry was posted in Congress, Environmental, Political, Reed's Views and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Tom Reed on Environmental Protection

  1. catkestler says:

    Hence, this is why big corporations want to dismantle the EPA and are confirmed science deniers. Even Reed has flip flopped on this issue and has claimed to not be a scientist.


  2. whungerford says:

    Recently Jeb Bush reportedly said he doesn’t know what almost everyone else does.


  3. josephurban says:

    China seems to be doing okay without being over regulated by any Clean Air Act.


  4. whungerford says:

    Reed says “All Americans agree on the importance of clean air,” yet he would block clean air regulations. Perhaps he sees no connection between regulation and progress. John Stossel wrote something similar, saying that now that air and water are cleaner regulations are superfluous.


  5. josephurban says:

    The old time conservatives like Nixon, Eisenhower, Dole, etc. understood that in order for business to be successful we need to have a balance between profits and protection of the environment that makes business activity possible. Which is why it was a GOP president that insisted on creating the EPA. While today politicians who call themselves “conservatives” are actually quite radical in their lockstep support for policies that will, in the long run. lead to higher costs of doing business and much higher costs for American society. The difference between those who care about the future and those who care only for short term profits.
    Over the years both GOP and Dems have strengthened the various Clean Water and Clean Acts until 2005 when the Congress voted to EXEMPT Hydraulic Fracturing from the Clean Water Act. We have begun a downward trend . People are either too young or don’t remember Love Canal, the gray waters of the Kalamazoo River, Lake Erie burning, etc.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Deb Meeker says:

    What kind of environment does Tom Reed wish to leave his children and possible grandchildren? He appears to believe in the “throw the umbrella away, because it’s no longer raining” philosophy. Tom Reed is gravely mistaken if he believes air pollution and an unprotected environment won’t affect those he cares about; his hundreds of thousands in payoffs for willful ignorance cannot keep a clean bubble around just their heads and lungs.


  7. BOB McGILL says:

    First of all, it is the poor countries of the third world who can’t afford to protect the environment. If you have your way the US will be as brike as a third world country. Sorry to say but nobody knows environmental regulations better than “a variety of manufacturing industry leaders.” Bet you don’t even know what ” ambient air pollution ” consists of 🙂 .

    And do you know what is the biggest cause of all this ? AGRICULTURE 🙂
    ■2,200 nonfatal heart attacks
    ■6,600 hospital and emergency room visits
    ■2,980 cases of acute or chronic bronchitis
    ■44,000 cases of upper and lower respiratory symptoms
    ■23,000 cases of aggravated asthma
    ■770,000 days when people miss work or school
    ■2.6 million days when people must restrict their activities


  8. pystew says:

    Agricultural is the BIGGEST cause of Heart Attacks, Emergency Room visits, Chronicle Bronchitis, Respiratory Symptoms, Asthma, missing work and school? That would be different to prove. Did you make that up, Bob?


  9. BOB McGILL says:

    U GUYS MAKE ME LAUGH, if it weren’t for ” big corporations ” , ” the manufacturing industry “, and corporations developing and making your drugs and other things you depend on, you’d all be dead 🙂


  10. whungerford says:

    I did wonder about Reed’s misuse of the term ambient, which refers to the level of pollution in the surrounding air regardless of source. He wrote about: “the lack of delineation between ambient air pollution and pollution generated by manufacturing facilities,” which makes me think he is trying to put the blame for air pollution on natural causes. This is a poor excuse for not regulating pollution from manufacturers, automobiles, and other controllable sources.


  11. BOB McGILL says:

    yep, do you eat meat ? where does herion and cocaine come from ? Of course I’m excluding STDs’ and OBESITY 🙂
    Californian columnist Lois Henry
    I’m sure a recent study looking at asthma and fine particulate matter in the San Joaquin Valley will go over like a lead balloon for some.
    What it found was even as fine particulate matter (tiny bits of dust and soot also called PM2.5) dropped significantly in the years 2008-2010, asthma-related ER visits went up.
    What that means, as far as asthma goes, is air pollution isn’t a major contributing factor.
    It’s well known that air pollution doesn’t cause asthma, but the mantra has long been it’s likely a trigger for asthma attacks.
    Well, probably not, according to this study, commissioned by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District and scheduled to be presented at the district’s June 19 board meeting.

    Related Info
    Air pollution study

    You can read a summary of the study at the link below. The full study will be presented at the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s board meeting June 19.

    Click to access 11.pdf

    “It shows that, relative to other causes, air pollution doesn’t even register” as a trigger for asthma attacks


  12. Anne says:

    Remember James Watt’s claim that trees cause air pollution?

    Liked by 1 person

  13. whungerford says:

    Bob, in the report you cited I found this:

    Spanning the years 2002-2007, the study found significant correlations between daily rates of the following health outcomes and high levels of daily PM2.5 in Modesto, Fresno, and Bakersfield:
    1. Asthma ER admissions for adults (+ 20 years)
    2. Asthma hospitalizations for children (1-19 years) and adults
    3. Pneumonia ER admissions for children
    4. Acute bronchitis ER admissions for adults
    5. Adult acute myocardial infarction (heart attack) hospitalization
    The key indicator for demonstrating association was the relative risk (RR) metric. For example for 2005-07 among ages 1 to 19, an increased RR of nearly 1.5 was found for ER admission on days when the average 24 hour PM2.5 mass was among the highest 20% (quintile) of all winter days (all cities combined).

    I found nothing in this report to justify your claims.


  14. BOB McGILL says:

    You said “Who were these panelists? Reed doesn’t say. It is safe to assume that environmentalists were not included in “a variety of manufacturing industry leaders.”
    does Joe Kennedy count ?
    Sep 26, 2013 | Press Release
    Washington, D.C. – Congressman Tim Ryan and Congressman Tom Reed, co-Chairs of the House Manufacturing Caucus, are happy to announce that with the addition of Congressman Joe Kennedy III (MA—4), the Caucus has now reached 100 members.
    a Kennedy for god sakes a #1 eco-freak 🙂


  15. BOB McGILL says:

    Mar 22, 2013 | Press Release
    Congressmen Tom Reed (R-NY) and Tim Ryan (D-OH), Co-Chairs of the bipartisan House Manufacturing Caucus, held a workforce development panel Thursday with presentations from individuals in both the manufacturing and education sectors on how the two can collaborate.
    and a democrat is the co-chair with Reed . whungerford and another one of his conspiracy theories 😛


  16. BOB McGILL says:

    now tell us, what is PM2.5 ? nice try willy, but the is more proof that ag is number !


  17. BOB McGILL says:

    1.About 10 billion land animals in the United States are raised for dairy, meat, and eggs each year.

    2.Factory farming accounts for 37% of methane (CH4) emissions, which has more than 20 times the global warming potential of CO2.

    3.Manure can also contain traces of salt and heavy metals, which can end up in bodies of water and accumulate in the sediment, concentrating as they move up the food chain.

    4.When manure is repeatedly over applied to farm land it causes dangerous levels of phosphorus and nitrogen in the water supply. In such excessive amounts, nitrogen robs water of oxygen and destroys aquatic life.

    5.Burning fossil fuels to produce fertilizers for animal feed crops may emit 41 million metric tons of CO2 per year.

    6.Globally, deforestation for animal grazing and feed crops is estimated to emit 2.4 billion tons of CO2 every year
    7.Corn, wheat, and rice, the fast-growing crops on which humanity depends for survival, are among the most nitrogen hungry of all plants.

    8.Large-scale animal factories often give animals antibiotics to promote growth, or to compensate for illness resulting from crowded conditions. These antibiotics enter the environment and the food chain.

    9.Factory farms contribute to air pollution by releasing compounds such as hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and methane.

    10.The US Department of Agriculture estimates that confined farm animals generate more than 450 million tons of manure annually, 3 times more raw waste than generated by Americans.

    11.The waste lagoons on Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) not only pollute our groundwater, but deplete it as well. Many of the farms use the groundwater for cleaning, cooling, and drinking.


  18. josephurban says:

    Bob. You make a great case that the large agricultural corporations (also called Agribusiness) are ruining the environment with their practices. Was that supposed to be your point? We do need better regulation of the farming practices of big corporations. I applaud you for pointing that out. But with the power of the agricultural corporate lobby that will be difficult to change. It will take the defeat of those who are short-sighted and ignorant about the long term effects of the corporate farming practices you mentioned. Let us hope that Con. Reed shares your concern about corporate agriculture and the negative effects on the air, land and water..


  19. pystew says:

    How would you control agriculture?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.