
Finally, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) founded five decades ago in 1970 by President Richard Nixon is seeking comments (link provided at the end of this article) on proposed regulation changes that will provide Increased Consistency and Transparency of Benefits and Costs in the Clean Air Act Rulemaking Process (EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-00044).
As the homeless and poverty populations continue to grow in America it is becoming apparent that the unintended consequences of those stringent climate policies perpetuate into more costs onto the poorest residents as those policies are implemented. To the detriment of the poorest, things like the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and California’s Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) from1970 are being weaponized against projects that ultimately lands extra costs onto the laps of those that can least afford more expensive products and services.
As America recovers from the COVID-19 shelter-in-place mandates, America cannot rid itself from the continuing high costs imposed by climate polices that other countries are not shackled by. These high costs
severely limit the country’s economic base and the potential for improvement for its underclass.
To the detriment of those that can least afford expensive energy, climate policies have driven up the cost of electricity and fuels, which have driven up the cost of virtually everything used in our daily lives. Climate policies disproportionately harm its poorest residents particularly Latinos and African Americans.
If promulgated, future significant regulations promulgated under the Clean Air Act may be accompanied by a benefit-cost analysis (BCA) to share with the public as any costs imposed on industry will trickle down to the products and services used by all of society, both rich and poor.
It is immoral that time after time, climate policies continually imposes new costs and restrictions on energy and home-building which guarantee that housing, electricity prices, and transportation will continue to rise, which harms working families and minority communities the most.
One would think that the same folks who are demonstrating their rebellion with protests nationwide and worldwide about racial injustices by police departments following the “live lynching” of George Floyd would be the same folks being racially biased with more costs for energy that they cannot afford and would culminate that pain into protests of “enough is enough” and seek changes to lower the costs of energy for the poor.
Vehicle transportation is the survival mechanism for low-income people. If you try to increase the cost of automobiles and the costs of fuel, you hurt low-income people. Some of the taxes and climate policy costs hidden in the all-in posted price of fuel at the pump are: federal tax, excise tax, state tax, local sales tax, cap and trade program compliance costs, low-carbon fuel standard program compliance costs, and renewable fuels standard program compliance costs.
Cheap expressions of sympathy and solidarity to inner-city residents from the affluent are negated with imposition of unbearable costs for the energy to survive. Only by reducing rather than increasing the cost of energy, can we restore broad upward mobility potential for the underclass and hope to maintain a healthy democratic society.
* This article was originally published here
HELP STOP THE SPREAD OF FAKE NEWS!
SHARE our articles and like our Facebook page and follow us on Twitter!
0 Comments