The oil industry, on the other hand, is not pleased.
the oil industry opposed the new rule, saying it will raise costs for producers and consumers while not significantly improving air quality. Ninety percent of sulfur is already removed from gasoline under current regulations.“This rule’s biggest impact is to increase the cost of delivering energy to Americans, making it a threat to consumers, jobs, and the economy,” the American Petroleum Institute’s Downstream and Industry Operations Group Director Bob Greco said in a statement. “But it will provide negligible, if any, environmental benefits. In fact, air quality would continue to improve with the existing standard and without additional costs.”The EPA’s cost-estimate is also disputed by industry analysts. Charles Drevna, president of the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers lobbying group, toldthe New York Times that the price of gasoline could rise by 9 cents per gallon under the new rule.“I don’t know what model [the EPA] uses,” Drevna said. “The math doesn’t add up.”In addition, the oil refining industry argued that the industry will struggle to meet the 2017 deadline.“Besides the enormous costs and negligible environmental benefit, we are also concerned about the timeline of EPA’s new rule,” Greco said. “The rushed timeframe leaves little opportunity for refiners to design, engineer, permit, construct, start up, and integrate the new machinery required. This accelerated implementation only adds costs and potentially limits our industry’s ability to supply gasoline to consumers.”
The difference in the two industries' view on this is intriguing. Maybe it's because car companies stand a chance of survival if they show a zeal for green initiatives. We have to get around in something, after all. And there is an established track record of government bailing car companies out.
Oil, on the other hand, is something this regime and all Freedom-Haters in good standing want to eradicate. Whether they're getting squeezed is of far less concern to the overlords and the Kool-Aid drinkers.
Your ilk is making a big deal of the restaurateur who has taken to adding a visible reminder of the cost of Obamacare to his bill. Wouldn't it be quite revelatory to have this and all the other fine Cadillac bennies their workers receive which your ilk calls entitlements when the poor poor underprivileged masses get them, displayed at the pump or on that sticker on that shiny new car in the lot? We all pay one way or another. I personally don't put the auto and oil companies on any pedestals but freedom lovers apparently do.
ReplyDeleteHave you ever stopped to consider how pervasively beneficial petroleum is to your daily life?
ReplyDeleteAnd re: whether that would be revelatory or not to display a list of "bennies" on pumps and stickers: There's no useful way to answer a wide-open question like that without getting into specifics. The restaurant in question is making a point of informing the public of what government-imposed regulations are costing it. "Bennies," in the general sense of the term, are means of compensation that organizations that employ people choose as a supplement to paying employees money. So I don't see how that would edify anybody about anything.
You do get that the cost of employer-provided health insurance, dental insurance, legal insurance, pensions etc. is built into the price of the gas we pay for and the cars we buy, don't you? You pay for theirs but you don't want to pay from them other theirs over there (poor bastards) who do not work for these companies.
ReplyDeleteWell, sure, and so are the wages and salaries of the employees of those companies. Re: the ones who don't work for those companies, I'm not buying gas or cars from them, so paying for their insurance would amount to me just dipping into my pocket - under the imp[licit threat of government force - to provide them welfare.
ReplyDeleteIf I'm not buying something from someone, by what earthly rationale are they entitled to my money?
ReplyDelete