Skip to comments.EPA: ‘Nothing to fear’ on climate regs
Posted on 04/26/2011 8:31:42 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
EPA: Nothing to fear on climate regs By Andrew Restuccia - 04/26/11 10:43 AM ET
Environmental Protection Administrator Lisa Jackson said Tuesday that the public has no reason to fear the agencys pending climate regulations.
I believe there is nothing to fear from common-sense use of the Clean Air Act to begin to put this country in the direction of moving towards addressing our greenhouse gas emissions, Jackson said during remarks at an energy conference in Washington.
The EPA has begun phasing in greenhouse gas standards for new and modified power plants and refineries. The regulations have come under attack from Republicans and some moderate Democrats, who argue that the rules will harm the economy. The House passed a bill earlier this month to block EPA climate rules. The Senate failed to pass the legislation.
Jackson said she and President Obama would have preferred putting limits on greenhouse gas emissions through legislation. But efforts to pass such a bill fell apart in the Senate last year several months after the House passed cap-and-trade legislation.
So now were left with the Clean Air Act. Its not the ideal tool, but it is a tool and according to the Supreme Court it is a tool, Jackson said, referring to a landmark 2007 Supreme Court decision that said the EPA could regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act if the agency found they endanger public health and welfare. EPA made such a finding in 2009.
Jackson, who spoke at the Energy Information Administration's annual conference, said she hopes Congress will eventually move forward with climate legislation. But such a bill has little change of passing.
How honest and supported by actual data was the 2009 finding?
Google “Agenda 21” and do some reading. This is just another piece of the puzzle being fitted into place.
This enviro-commie is using standard CommieSpeak, not American English. Note carefully she said “I believe.....”. THus, she is giving you what she says she believes.
This is important in that a person can always have an opinion regardless of the facts. She can’t be held responsible for her opinion.
However, if she makes a statement of fact, she can be held responsible for what she says is “fact”.
In this case, she started her deliberately deceptive sentence as follows:
“I believe there is nothing to fear.......”. Opinion statement.
“There is nothing to fear.......” is a statement of fact (or a lie, as in this case).
When their lips are movin, they ARE lyin’.
So, your statement appears to be based on the theory that any regulatory agency can do anything it wants unless it's specifically prohibited by Congress? I don't think that's how it works. Regulatory agencies are not supposed to be able to do anything unless it's specifically provided for by Congress and approved by the President (Presidential approval not required if Congress overrides his veto).
Unfortunately, Congress is shirking its duty. I sure would like to see a Supreme Court ruling that restricts regulatory agencies to only their approved powers.
And yes, we do need a Congress, but one that stands fast to its oaths and obligations to support and defend the Constitution.
If this stupid woman still believes in anthropogenic global warming, I fear her ignorance as well as what the Pinhead Protection Agency will come up with to “help” me have a greener future.
In a related case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fox could unilaterally regulate security at the Henhouse if the Fox determined that the Hens needed protection.
There is nothing common sense about the EPA. If the EPA used common sense, they would not be dictatorial environmentalists. They would be a helpful rather than harmful agency if they used common sense.
The problem with the EPA is they are zero tolerance. That is why they approve nothing useful and stymie everything. They are a zero tolerance agency. They don’t want reasonable common sense emissions that don’t hamstring industry - they want zero tolerance. Hence their destructiveness.
Perfectly true. But you have no intention of making common-sense use of the Clean Air Act, Lisa, you naughty, naughty girl.