Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Legislation Would Block EPA’s CO2 Regulations
Heritage Foundation ^ | Jan 11, 2010 | Nick Loris

Posted on 01/11/2010 11:27:12 AM PST by thackney

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to do what Congress couldn’t: regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases because allegedly “greenhouse gases threaten both the public health and the public welfare, and that greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles contribute to that threat.” To prevent this backdoor policy that would grant the EPA unprecedented authority over American economy, Congressman Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) introduced legislation on Friday that would prohibit the agency from implementing national greenhouse gas emissions standards. In his press release, Congressman Pomeroy said,

Regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the current provisions of the Clean Air Act is irresponsible and just plain wrong. That is why I introduced the Save Our Energy Jobs Act which would stop the EPA from moving forward with its proposal. I am not about to let some Washington bureaucrat dictate new public policy that will raise our electricity rates and put at risk the thousands of coal-related jobs in our state.”

Regulating carbon dioxide would unnecessarily drive up the costs of energy. Because we use vast amounts of energy daily, in both personal use and the production of goods and services, those costs would spread like a virus throughout the economy. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce outlines a laundry list of businesses and entities that would potentially be affected under Clean Air Act regulations including schools, farms, restaurants, hospitals, apartment complexes and more. And anything with a motor, beginning with vehicles but ranging all the way from lawnmowers, jetskis and leaf blows could be subject to price-boosting regulations.

The EPA is proposing a rule change so the regulations would only affect businesses that emit 25,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions would prevent some of the smaller businesses from being directly targeted, but most would still be indirectly hit through higher energy costs.

As a result, higher energy prices force production cuts, reduced consumer spending, increased unemployment, and ultimately a much slower economy. And since low-income households spend a larger percentage of their income on energy, GHG regulations would impact the nation’s poor the most.

Having EPA bureaucrats micromanage the economy, all in the name of combating global warming, would be a chilling and massively expansive shift towards a top down regulatory environment. EPA regulations would essentially assure that a great deal of such economic activity would be held up for months, if not years. These problems have even state regulators up in arms:

Regulators from around the U.S., including Kansas, Pennsylvania, Florida and California, are calling on the EPA to go slowly with its new rules, and in some cases warning that they lack funding to regulate some of the new emissions sources that would be covered.

The states’ warnings vary in urgency, with some saying the EPA’s proposal can be easily tweaked and others urging the agency to reconsider the proposal, predicting dire consequences. South Carolina regulators, in a letter to EPA dated Dec. 23, said the proposal will cause chaos and warned that many construction projects — and jobs — are at risk.

In a Dec. 24 letter to the EPA, the California Energy Commission, which oversees energy policy in the state, said the EPA’s proposal “will likely retard, rather than facilitate,” reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions from its electricity sector.”

Congressman Pomeroy’s bill is an essential one if we don’t want unelected officials destroying jobs or sending them overseas because it’s too expensive to conduct business at home. In a letter to EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal emphasized that “We need sensible solutions to the environmental and economic challenges ahead.” The EPA’s actions are anything but sensible.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government
KEYWORDS: 111th; bhoenvironment; bhoepa; co2; economy; energy; envirofascism; epa; epabrownshirts; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax

1 posted on 01/11/2010 11:27:13 AM PST by thackney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: thackney

Really? Now that’s a democrat I like.


2 posted on 01/11/2010 11:29:07 AM PST by TribalPrincess2U (demonicRATS... taxes, pain and slow death. Is this what you want?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

The RATS are running scared!


3 posted on 01/11/2010 11:29:45 AM PST by Redleg Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

They are going to freeze their tuchus off in ND if the electric rates rise like the EPA will do.


4 posted on 01/11/2010 11:32:06 AM PST by I still care (A Republic - if you can keep it. - Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Grampa Dave; SierraWasp

Proposed by a RAT—no less. Whoa Baby


5 posted on 01/11/2010 11:33:03 AM PST by BOBTHENAILER ( EPA will rule your life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

The Alliance for Clear Climate Economics and Science Solutions (ACCESS) was created to ensure that any regulation of greenhouse gases using existing environmental laws not harm the economy and American jobs, be based on sound science and allow for public review of all underlying data and scientific analysis.

http://www.uschamber.com/co2/default

EPA has proposed a legal finding, pursuant to Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (“CAA” or “Act”), that greenhouse gases (“GHGs”) emitted by new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. EPA’s theory, as it has been set forth in the Proposal, is that US. emissions of GHGs from new motor vehicles contribute to global “air pollution,” which then in turn endangers US. public health or welfare.

It has been the consistent position of the U.S. Chamber that the CAA was never meant to regulate GHGs, and the convoluted test for endangerment EPA has manufactured in the Proposal only serves to highlight this point. As a matter of law, EPA lacks the authority to regulate worldwide air pollution under CAA Section 202(a), and its “domestic-global-domestic” endangerment test for GHGs is fatally flawed. However, even if this test were legally permissible, EPA has not adequately demonstrated from a legal or scientific perspective the necessary components of an endangerment finding for GHGs.

To compensate for these obvious legal and scientific shortcomings, EPA commits a wide range of “sins of omission,” willfully ignoring relevant, credible scientific information, including information generated by EPA’s own staff. EPA also willfully ignores the near-unavoidable chain of regulatory determinations and rulemakings that will result, a , matter f in one of the largest and most burdensome regulatory programs in American history. By relying only on data that supports its conclusion and ignoring anything and everything that calls its scientific and legal findings into question, this EPA has exhibited the exact same biased, politically-charged conduct many of its current employees criticized the Bush EPA for injecting into the regulatory process.

In an obvious attempt to mute criticism of the Proposal’s flaws, EPA has turned the endangerment process into a complicated game of “hide the ball.” It refused to incorporate any comments from last year’s ANPR into the record for the Proposal1—andhas given no indication whatsoever that its staff actually read the ANPR comments prior to issuing the Proposal—yet refused to extend the comment period on the grounds that the public had a chance to respond to much of the Proposal during the ANPR process that EPA now no longer deems relevant. It has cursorily dismissed documents leaked to the public that show obvious disagreement among the agencies in the Executive Branch over the scientific and legal implications of an endangerment finding. And, by issuing a formal notice that it intends to promulgate a Section 202(a)-based tailpipe GHG emissions rule, it has clearly prejudged the issue of endangerment and has therefore turned the Proposal comment period into a complete charade.


6 posted on 01/11/2010 11:33:58 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

do you happen to have a link? can’t open this one


7 posted on 01/11/2010 11:34:39 AM PST by BOBTHENAILER ( EPA will rule your life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney


TRANSLATED FROM GOVERNMENT SPEAK:
The bribes for granting exceptions to the phony carbon taxing scheme belong to members of Congress not some bureaucrat at the EPA. Hands off our slush fund!
8 posted on 01/11/2010 11:35:36 AM PST by GonzoGOP (There are millions of paranoid people in the world and they are all out to get me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney
Great, they introduced legislation, he will get hundreds of co-sponsors.

However, how many of them will sign the discharge petition forcing this to the floor for a vote?

9 posted on 01/11/2010 11:40:48 AM PST by MNJohnnie (Demand Constitutionality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/11/legislation-would-block-epa%e2%80%99s-co2-regulations/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Energy%2Band%20Environment%20Update

Also at the top of the list at:

http://blog.heritage.org/category/energy-and-environment/


10 posted on 01/11/2010 11:42:40 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: thackney

“Congressman Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) introduced legislation on Friday that would prohibit the agency from implementing national greenhouse gas emissions standards. In his press release, Congressman Pomeroy said.”

So why haven’t our snoozing Republican’s done this already?


11 posted on 01/11/2010 11:44:54 AM PST by Dem Guard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dem Guard
Don't expect Grassley, Lugar, Bond etc., to do what needs to be done. They're asleep.
12 posted on 01/11/2010 11:49:03 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks (Impeachment !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Redleg Duke

Wait till Scott Brown wins in MA....we’ve not seen that kind of fear yet among the dems...this would do it.


13 posted on 01/11/2010 11:49:36 AM PST by shield (A wise man's heart is at his RIGHT hand;but a fool's heart at his LEFT. Ecc 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks

These guys all act like there is no benefit in being a VERY vocal minority and raising hell everyday against the Dems.


14 posted on 01/11/2010 11:52:37 AM PST by Dem Guard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: thackney

thanks a million—will spread it far and wide


15 posted on 01/11/2010 11:57:10 AM PST by BOBTHENAILER ( EPA will rule your life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: All

I’m not really fond of promoting a democrat, but on this issue, he is promoting our national interest.

Congressman Earl Pomeroy today announced introduction of H.R. 4396, the Save Our Energy Jobs Act, legislation which would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse gases. This legislation has been introduced in response to a recent EPA announcement that it was moving forward on new rules to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. This action, if not prevented, could dramatically increase energy rates as well as end up costing North Dakota jobs.

http://www.pomeroy.house.gov/


16 posted on 01/11/2010 12:06:14 PM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

North Dakota is an energy producing state in addition to agriculture. Our boy Pomeroy is just trying to hold onto his job here, but it won’t work - he’ll be replaced by a Republican that will vote in his constituents’ interest all the time as opposed to only in election years.


17 posted on 01/11/2010 12:21:45 PM PST by GOP_Party_Animal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Party_Animal

Thank you, I have no knowledge of Rep Pomeroy beyond what I have read today.


18 posted on 01/11/2010 12:28:20 PM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Yeah, Pomeroy’s exceedingly liberal. He had promised to vote against ObamaCare (60-70% of North Dakotans are against it) but switched his vote when Pelosi yanked his chain.


19 posted on 01/11/2010 12:33:00 PM PST by GOP_Party_Animal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: thackney
Regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the current provisions of the Clean Air Act is irresponsible and just plain wrong. That is why I introduced the Save Our Energy Jobs Act which would stop the EPA from moving forward with its proposal.

A better title might be “Don’t Regulate Us Until We are a Third World Nation Act”

20 posted on 01/11/2010 12:51:05 PM PST by Pontiac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

ping for later...


21 posted on 01/11/2010 1:00:28 PM PST by WOBBLY BOB (ACORN:American Corruption for Obama Right Now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: thackney; IrishCatholic; mmanager; enough_idiocy; FreedomPoster; carolinablonde; proud_yank; ...
 


Beam me to Planet Gore !

22 posted on 01/11/2010 1:03:40 PM PST by steelyourfaith (Freedom from fat cat greedy Big Government tyranny IS a Right ... It IS the Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER

Do you realize this even numbered year is already 11 days old???


23 posted on 01/11/2010 4:25:58 PM PST by SierraWasp (Ammunition!!! The international monitary fund... ! ! ! ... ... ! ! ! ... ... ! ! ! ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: thackney; 11B40; A Balrog of Morgoth; A message; ACelt; Aeronaut; AFPhys; AlexW; America_Right; ...
D0000MAGE!

Global Warming PING!

You have been pinged because of your interest in environmentalism, alarmist wackos, mainstream media doomsday hype, and other issues pertaining to global warming.

Freep-mail me to get on or off: Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on global warming.

No sign of global warming as Miami hits all-time record low

Global Warming on Free Republic

Latest from Global Warming News Site

Latest from Greenie Watch

Latest from Junk Science

Latest from Terra Daily

24 posted on 01/11/2010 6:19:27 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Don't eat your dog; eat obnoxious, liberal humans to save the planet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

thanks, bfl


25 posted on 01/11/2010 6:38:38 PM PST by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: thackney

This won’t pass. Even the RAT sponsors will eventually get bought off.


26 posted on 01/11/2010 7:20:37 PM PST by Mike Darancette (Copenhagen Climate Summit; Shovel Ready)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

The problem with any legislation is that, even if Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid were to let it through (highly unlikely), the Kenyan Clown would still certainly veto it. There’s no way that any bill like this is going to muster 2/3s in both the House and Senate for an override of an Obama veto.


27 posted on 01/11/2010 7:32:23 PM PST by snowsislander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SierraWasp

sliding right on by, ain’t it


28 posted on 01/12/2010 11:37:46 AM PST by BOBTHENAILER ( EPA will rule your life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson