EPA chief slams bills to block climate rules, affirms Obama's veto threat

The Hill ^ | February 2, 2011 | Ben Geman

[jazusamo]

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson on Wednesday attacked bills piling up in Congress that would block the agency’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and reiterated the White House veto threat.

Jackson, speaking to reporters, initially declined to address whether President Obama would veto bills that stop climate rules, but later said that past threats still stand.

“What has been stated from the White House is that the president’s advisers would advise him to veto any legislation that passed that would take away the EPA’s greenhouse gas authority,” Jackson told reporters. “Nothing has changed.”

Jackson defended the agency’s initiatives to regulate emissions from power plants and other facilities.

“Those [bills] would halt EPA’s common-sense steps under the Clean Air Act to protect Americans from harmful air pollution that until now has not been regulated at all from any sources in this country,” Jackson told reporters after testifying at a Senate hearing on drinking-water safety.

She reiterated her view that EPA’s Clean Air Act rules are not a drag on the economy. 

“I want to point out that we already regulate carbon from automobiles, we already regulate it from the really large sources, those that burn the equivalent of a railroad car of carbon a day, and the economy is fine,” Jackson said, adding that regulations help steer investment into the “clean energy economy.”

Several top GOP senators floated a sweeping bill this week that would prevent the federal government from regulating greenhouse gases or addressing climate change through environmental statutes.

Later on Wednesday, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) are expected to float a measure that would specifically block Clean Air Act rules, a House GOP aide said Tuesday evening.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), meanwhile, is pushing legislation that doesn’t remove EPA’s authority for good but would block regulation of greenhouse gases from stationary facilities for two years.

EPA and the Department of Transportation currently administer joint vehicle mileage and greenhouse gas requirements. 

More controversially, EPA has begun phasing in rules that require large new and modified industrial plants to minimize emissions and is crafting broader national emissions standards for power plants and refineries, among other efforts.

Critics of EPA rules say they will hinder the economy.

[jazusamo]

those that burn the equivalent of a railroad car of carbon a day, and the economy is fine,”

Newsflash for Lisa, the economy is not fine and her boss seems to agree.

[jazusamo]

Ping!

[Nervous Tick]

Take away the EPA’s funding! See if they’re dedicated enough to work for NO PAY wielding that vaunted “greenhouse gas authority” to our detriment.

[pissant]

Get rid of that worthless POS department altogether.

[Secret Agent Man]

Just defund the fu####g EPA already. That’s the only thing that will stop them.

[jazusamo]

Yep, start by defunding by about 90% and if they don’t get the message take the other 10%.

[traditional1]

Yoo-Hoo.....airhead: You can’t regulate without funding, and we don’t need no steenkin’ veto to cut your salary to zero.

[DarthVader]

Hey Lisa, the peoples House can defund your organization and halt operations.

[Question Liberal Authority]

Critics of EPA rules say they will hinder the economy.

That, and the fact that climate change theory is a steaming pile of Marxist crap.

[traditional1]

"Just defund the fu####g EPA already. That’s the only thing that will stop them"

WELL SAID !

[JPG]

DEFUND the EPA. NO MORE MONEY. Mr. Boehner, MAKE IT SO!

[steelyourfaith]

Thanx jazusamo !

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[Question Liberal Authority]

“Those that burn the equivalent of a railroad car of carbon a day” could also be phrased as “those who create the equivalent of a trainload of plant food per day”.

[Ken522]

Lisa Jackson is a smart cookie - it’s too bad she chose to waste her intellect at the EPA.

[KoRn]

With the economy in shambles while Americans are freezing their asses off, I’d bet there could be a better than even chance of overriding a veto, when the public sees the EPA literally costing us jobs.

I think the entire agency needs to be de-funded and closed down(along with a few others).

[Brett66]

The EPA is unconstitutional, congress can regulate interstate commerce, but it shouldn’t be an agency. Carbon emissions involves regulations for environmental interests, not a financial transaction.

[jazusamo]

I just wonder if Zer0 really would veto, he may have a lapse of sanity.

I agree on the defunding, them and others.

[musicman]

"EPA chief slams bills to block climate rules, affirms Obama's veto threat..."

[G Larry]

“Those [bills] would halt EPA’s common-sense steps under the Clean Air Act to protect Americans from harmful air pollution that until now has not been regulated at all from any sources in this country,”

She reiterated her view that EPA’s Clean Air Act rules are not a drag on the economy.

“I want to point out that we already regulate carbon from automobiles, we already regulate it from the really large sources, those that burn the equivalent of a railroad car of carbon a day, and the economy is fine,” Jackson said, adding that regulations help steer investment into the “clean energy economy.”

1) EPA an “common sense” don’t belong in the same sentence.
2) CO2 is NOT “harmful air pollution”, despite any ruling from the bench.
3) The Clean Air act rules ARE a HUGE drag on the economy, and the data to prove it are extensive.
4) “we already regulate carbon from automobiles” If Lisa doesn’t know the difference between CO2 and Carbon Monoxide, she should be fired and the EPA shut down!

[rogue yam]

“I want to point out that we already regulate carbon...and the economy is fine”

Wow! With major league leftists serving up softballs like this it makes you wonder why we conservatives aren't doing better in the debate.