Skip to comments.EPA Chief: CO2 Danger Finding May Not 'Mean Regulation'
Posted on 05/12/2009 1:18:32 PM PDT by reaganaut1
The head of the Environmental Protection Agency said Tuesday a finding that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide are a public-health danger won't necessarily lead to government regulation of emissions, an apparent about-face for the Obama administration.
The new position follows revelation of a White House document that warns the EPA of the wide-ranging -- and potentially economically harmful -- consequences of an agency finding last month that proposes declaring greenhouse gases are a danger to the public.
The White House memo also undermines the EPA's reasoning for the "endangerment" proposal.
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has previously said such a decision "will indeed trigger the beginning of regulation of CO2."
But speaking before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Ms. Jackson said Tuesday that an endangerment finding, "does not mean regulation."
An EPA spokeswoman wasn't immediately able to explain the apparent change of policy position.
Pressed by Sen. John Barrasso (R., Wyo.) about the interagency memo sent by the Office of Management and Budget to the EPA before the agency published its proposed endangerment finding, Ms. Jackson said she disagreed with several of the document's characterizations
She added, however, "We do understand that there are costs to the economy of addressing global warming."
She reiterated the administration belief that "the best way to address that is through a gradual move to a market-based program such as a cap-and-trade program."
The OMB memo warns the EPA, "Making the decision to regulate CO2 under the [Clean Air Act] for the first time is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities."
The White House legal brief starts by questioning the link between the EPA's scientific argument for endangerment and its political summary.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Long past time to declare Richard Nixon’s regulatory monster as unconsitutional.
No, they are going to tax everything. The KNOW it will be a disaster; they KNOW it will cause great harm to the economy; they KNOW taxpayers/consumers are going to be very angry, yet they plan to do this anyway, and she said so: “She reiterated the administration belief that ‘the best way to address that is through a gradual move to a market-based program such as a cap-and-trade program.’” The interesting part is why they think they will get away with it.
They will not be denied their TAX and RATION plan for energy.
Even when the EPA stops short of lunacy, the activists push on. Although this references a different set of EPA reuglations, it illustrates the attitude of enviro-thugs. They will push issues further.
Kassie Siegel, director of The Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute, said that, “her group is prepared to sue for regulation of smaller emitters if the EPA stops at simply large emitters.”
The problem with many of the regulations is that they can and will be taken to amazingly stupid extremes.
Yeah, the Sun may not rise tomorrow morning either, but it's the wise bet.
Perhaps a simple massive tax will take the place of regulation. For a liberal, there's nothing that a good stiff tax can't fix.
They don’t want to get us fired up and aware ahead of cap and trade..
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
The EPA, like the Politburo, will always have opposing internal factions jockeying for control. This confusion may indicate a chaotic agency at this time. Carol Browner, the Klimate Tsarina, may have to restore order.
I have to wonder what kind of idiot would find CO2 to be a health hazard? That anyone believes this sh** is astounding to say the least, and any 5th grader should be able to tell these fools that CO2 is a plant food and necessary to sustain life on earth, without it we are all dead.