Then she went into the second (alleged) reason, which was very interesting:
The EPA creates jobs ... When EPA says that that dirty smokestack needs a new scrubber, someone has to engineer that scrubber, someone has to build that scrubber, someone has to install it, maintain it, and operate it. Those are American jobs.
This is bad economics .. In fact, we can keep upping the ante—having businesses with dirty smokestacks buy three, four, eight hundred scrubbers—until we restore full employment just by regulatory fiat.
On the fly, Colbert himself pointed out the absurdity of Browner’s second alleged benefit of EPA’s new regulations. Colbert (pretending to be a stereotypical right-winger who cares only about business and not the environment) told Browner that “we’re losing our lunch” to the Chinese, whose businesses don’t have to face the high regulatory costs that American firms endure.
In response, Browner asked Colbert if he had ever breathed the air in China. He admitted it was more polluted than the U.S. air, but then saw a comedic opening. He argued:
"That’s another job creator. If there’s more pollution [in the U.S.], then there’s more work for the doctors who have to cure us of the diseases we get, from the things we eat and drink ... I can use your own logic against you."