What editorial writers are saying about Obama's delay of air-quality standards

Editorial writers were split. Some, even if they support the new regulations, said putting off the requirement makes sense politically because of the possibility that jobs could be at risk under the rule. But others said the idea that pollution standards kill jobs is overblown, and that public health should have been the overriding factor.

Obama does well to pull back EPA ozone regulations

President Barack Obama ... did the intelligent thing, and he did it for the right reason: Now is not the time for the federal government to promulgate a new regulation that would burden localities struggling to break the grip of a persistent recession. The Plain Dealer (Cleveland), Sept. 12

A false choice between jobs and pollution

Consider one of the "job-destroying regulations" cited in [a] memo [written by Rep. Eric Cantor (R,Va.)]. It addresses cross-state air pollution attributable to emissions from power plants, likely forcing utilities to upgrade some of their oldest coal-burning plants, and, according to the cost-benefit analysis, that rule would result in $30 in economic benefits for every dollar spent. The benefits would derive from employees taking fewer sick days, a lower incidence of many chronic illnesses and fewer early deaths. Simply stated, that's fewer heart attacks, fewer asthma attacks, fewer respiratory diseases. Destroying jobs? Or saving lives? The Press Democrat (Santa Rosa, Calif.), Sept. 12

A bad but realistic decision on EPA

The president, apparently, felt forced to choose between saving jobs or moving ahead on EPA standards that might initially increase industry costs to implement. He also knew it would be political suicide to campaign for re-election on a pro-jobs platform while supporting EPA standards that the GOP claims, however wrongly, would kill jobs. ... Good decisions shouldn't be bad for our health, but that's the place the country finds itself in given the bleak economy and polarized political landscape. Star Tribune (Minneapolis), Sept. 11

Wrong decision on smog standards

Measured in more crass terms -- dollars and cents -- the costs aren't as catastrophic as GOP leaders or industrial officials would have Americans believe. According to the EPA, the cost to industry to implement the higher standards would be $19 billion to $90 billion a year by 2020. The EPA analysis showed health benefits would equate to $13 billion to $100 billion. The Virginian-Pilot (Norfolk, Va.), Sept. 9

Obama made the right call on ozone limits

We Americans -- environmentalists included -- sit in traffic daily with our car engines running, knowing better than to do the same thing inside a garage with the door closed. There are limits to what we, individually, would give up to save the environment. The government can only go so far in limiting us collectively. And the EPA under Obama still is going plenty far. Corpus Christi (Texas) Caller-Times, Sept. 7

A failure to protect

The president seems to have forgotten that American voters traditionally support conservation, even in hard times. Yes, they want a healthy economy. But they also want -- and need -- clean air and healthy kids. The Register-Guard (Eugene, Ore.), Sept. 7