Obama's Jobs, Emissions Pledges Clash

The Obama administration is embarked on two seemingly irreconcilable missions this week: Creating jobs and curbing emissions.

President Barack Obama finally moved job creation higher up on his priority list, hosting a jobs summit and announcing plans to divert $200 billion in funds targeted to bailing out the financial industry to boosting employment. Although details are sketchy, the president reportedly is considering tax breaks and other incentives to encourage employers to add jobs.

A more effective approach would be to stimulate demand for goods and services through direct tax reductions to individuals. Sluggish consumer spending is behind much of the anemic job growth performance, particularly among small businesses.

Another factor discouraging businesses from adding employees is the uncertain business climate. Employers are already worried about the impact of the pending health care legislation on their payroll costs. Small businesses in particular are less likely to add employees whom they will be responsible for covering under costly government health insurance mandates.

On Monday, the administration slapped another layer of uncertainty on business by declaring carbon dioxide a dangerous pollutant that must be regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency. Business groups responded with predictions that the regulations will require expensive new equipment that will slow the economy and increase unemployment.

They are also likely to hamstring construction of planned power plants, immediately affecting construction employment and, long-term, starving the nation of energy needed to grow new jobs.

Add that to the president's presence this week in Copenhagen, where he is expected to commit the United States to reducing greenhouse gases to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and there's little reason for private industry to anticipate a favorable environment for growth over the next decade. Why build new factories now that might soon fall under onerous emissions restrictions?

Perhaps it is possible to both grow the economy and drastically reduce emissions, which are the byproduct of a vibrant economy.

But Obama has not articulated a plan for doing so.

It's worth noting that Obama hopes in Copenhagen to erase the shame of America's refusal to sign on to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on climate change.

And yet, between 2000-07, the United States reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 3 percent, while the European Kyoto signatories increased theirs by 0.1 percent.

We achieved our reduction in large part through the loss of our manufacturing base to lower cost — and less environmentally conscious — nations, such as China and India.

Unless Obama comes up with an industrial strategy that meshes with his environmental goals, that's likely how we'll achieve the additional reductions he promises.

REPRINTED FROM THE DETROIT NEWS

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM