Posted on 04/17/2011 5:23:47 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
EPA Deputy Administrator Mathy Stanislaus
EPA Deputy Administrator Mathy Stanislaus should be given credit for showing up Thursday to an Environment and Energy subcommittee hearing, but may not be returning any time soon. Let’s just say his performance was cringe-inducing as he spun like a top attempting to deflect the very pointed, and basic yes-or-no questions of Rep. Cory Gardner (R – Colorado). An exasperated Stanislaus even resorted to a face-palm maneuver to regain his rhetorical footing. Of course, YouTube video exists…see below.
It’s clear that the GOP wants to eliminate the EPA’s current attempt/ability to regulate greenhouse gases (CO2) and, here, coal-ash, and is using its newly acquired power in the House to call hearings, demand/compel Obama administration officials to testify, and expose the job-killing nature of the EPA’s regulations. In other words, this is how politics works. The liberal media’s lack of coverage of this “inconsistency” in word versus deed with the Obama EPA demonstrates how in-the-tank the media is for the ’12 re-election. Ideology is more important than jobs.
Right wing outlets are hyping the performance of the EPA deputy as a victory and tacit admission that the EPA greenhouse regulations will kill (civility alert!) jobs. From the DAILY CALLER:
“We have not directly taken a look at jobs in the proposal,” Stanislaus said, referring to a regulation that would govern industries that recycle coal ash and other fossil fuel byproducts.
Coal ash is commonly used to make concrete stronger and longer lasting, make wallboard more durable and improve the quality of roofing shingles…
Gardner pressed Stanislaus as to whether or not EPA had done a direct economic analysis on how the rule would affect jobs, to which Stanislaus replied saying that EPA had not included jobs in its cost-benefit analysis of the rule.
“Do you feel an economic analysis that does not include the complete picture on jobs, is that a full economic analysis?” Gardner asked. “I think it is really a yes or no question.
“To me, I don’t see how you can talk about economic analysis without talking about jobs… and you said that you would not promulgate a rule where the costs would exceed the benefits,” Gardner continued. “But if you are not taking into account jobs, I don’t see how that goes.”
Gardner’s line of questioning had Stanislaus visibly dumbfounded, and he repeatedly told the congressman he would have to get back to him with the answers to his questions.
“I’d like to see a list of all of the rules that you have proposed that haven’t taken into account jobs,” Gardner said. “We need to know if the EPA considers jobs in their analysis and whether you have, and whether EPA’s position is to consider jobs when it does an economic analysis.”
Stanislaus then replied saying EPA considers jobs in all of its economic analysis, but that the form of the analysis is driven by the requirements rules that are under consideration.
The EPA official’s testimony has generated negative reactions from pro-business advocates who say Stanislaus’s testimony shows the agency is out of touch with reality and is indifferent to job creation.
The painful testimony reaches a crescendo at the 3:00 minute mark, when the EPA bureaucrat appears to be looking for an exit. At least Stanislaus showed up. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson is unavailable for testimony with a fully booked schedule, including her speech Saturday night at the Socialist Youth Climate Conference in Washington D.C. From POLITICO:
House Republicans aren’t happy that top EPA officials are skipping hearings on efforts to roll back the agency’s regulations.
“We could call them the Evaporating Personnel Administration, I guess,” Texas Republican Rep. Joe Barton said Friday. “They don’t seem to ever show up and be accountable.”
“I do find it troubling once again that Lisa Jackson once again is a no show at a very important hearing that she’s had every opportunity to be in attendance,” Barton said. “The MACT truck is about to run us over all and she’s not even here to comment on those regulations.”
As with most of the EPA, they do not have no clue of what they’re talking about.
Idiots all!
I don’t understand. All animals need CO2 to breath. Trees need CO1 to live and turn it back into CO2.
I’m in favor of limiting greenhouse gases if all environmentalists agree to stop breathing air every other day.
Problem fixed in a short time, and not very expensive.
Thanks for the ping!
Actually animals, including us, need O2 (oxygen) to survive,
plants need CO2 (carbon dioxide). They take in the CO2 and turn it into O2, then we take in the O2 and exhale CO2.
Pretty little circle there that has worked for a long time and something that I learned in elementary school. Probably not taught anymore though since it violates the AGW crowd’s drivel.
“violates the AGW crowd’s drivel.”
Truth hurts when it does not fit the liberal agenda.
“When Stanislaus says that “we can’t wait until we have all the conclusive interpretive science to make a decision,” I agree with him, but that’s not the precautionary principle, that’s just a willingness to regulate under uncertainty, which has been a bedrock of environmental law.”
“However, the precautionary principle is something different and much more insidious. It’s not “regulate in spite of uncertainty” – it’s “regulate because of uncertainty.” It seems to stem from an almost Luddite fear of new technology and, as Sunstein points out, a philosophical view that nature is good and man-made is bad.”
http://www.lawandenvironment.com/tags/mathy-stanislaus/
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.