Posted on 03/07/2014 4:12:40 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[2] U.S. Energy Information Agency, “Short Term Outlook—February 2014,” Table 7d, http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/tables/pdf/7dtab.pdf (accessed February 26, 2014).
[3] See Nicolas D. Loris, Kevin D. Dayaratna, and David W. Kreutzer, “EPA Power Plant Regulations: A Backdoor Energy Tax,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No 2683, December 5, 2013, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/12/epa-power-plant-regulations-a-backdoor-energy-tax (accessed February 26, 2014).
[4] Out of a total of 670,000 jobs lost. This differs from the estimates referred to earlier (600,000 jobs lost), which are calculated from the Heritage Foundation Energy Model using employment figures from the Current Population Survey. These new estimates are calculated from the same Heritage Foundation Energy Model but use employment data from the American Community Survey in order to illustrate the impact in various congressional districts. Other coal dependent states that are not heavy manufacturers will also be significantly impacted by the EPA’s regulations. For instance, although West Virginia and Wyoming are relatively low on manufacturing jobs lost, Heritage estimates these will be the two hardest hit states in terms of overall job losses per 100,000 employed. For a more detailed explanation of the overall job losses and methodology, see ibid.
[5] Business Standard, “U.S. Chemical Industry Invest $100 Bn Due to Shale Gas Boom,” February 22, 2014, http://www.business-standard.com/content/b2b-chemicals/us-chemical-industry-invest-100-bn-due-to-shale-gas-boom-114022400678_1.html (accessed February 26, 2014).
[6] Environmental Protection Agency, “Report of the Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage,” August 2010, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ccs/CCS-Task-Force-Report-2010.pdf (accessed February 26, 2014).
[7] Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “Kemper County IGCC Fact Sheet: Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Project,” http://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/kemper.html (accessed February 26, 2014).
ping
It is 0’sj ob to completely destroy the economy to bringbthe U.S. to its knees. The EPA is his right hand man....
It is 0’sj ob to completely destroy the economy to bringbthe U.S. to its knees. The EPA is his right hand man....
I’d love to see the number of jobs the EPA has cost since its unholy birth.
Wait a minute!
Regulations can harm manufacturing?
Funny that the guy who says this likes the biggest, recent job destroyer, Obamacare.
Please note the Wisconsin job losses. Anyone think this might be revenge against Scott Walker?
More than 16,000 in Michigan.
That’ll learn us for passing RTW.
Wait another minute. America still has manufacturing?
Are you serious?
I honestly don’t know. Maybe Wisconsin has a lot of coal-fueled power plants?
Yup.
Thank you for referencing that article 1rudeboy. Please bear in mind that the following critique is directed aganst the artice and not at you.
What’s harming America is actually the following. Parents are not making sure that their children are being taught the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers. Otherwise, even grade school children might be able to point out the following major constitutional problems with the EPA.
To begin with, the Founding States had made the first numbered clauses of the Constitution, Sections 1-3 of Article I, evidently a good place to hide them from the legislative and executive branches, to clarify that all federal legislative powers are vested in the elected members of Congress. So Congress has a constitutional monopoly on federal legislative powers whether it wants it or not. And by delegating legislative / regulatory powers to non-elected bureaucrats, Congress is wrongly protecteding federal legislative powers from the wrath of the voters in blatant defiance of the clauses referenced above.
Did I say federal legislative powers?
Note that even if Congress did have a constitutional option to delegate legislative powers to non-elected government bureaucrats, it remains that the states have never delegated to Congress, via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate environmental issues. So Congress has not only unconstitutionally delegated legislative powers to non-elected bureaucrats, those running the EPA in this example, but Congress is delegating legislative powers that it does not have.
What a mess! :^(
I believe that it’s a flaw in the Constitution: on paper (in my opinion), Congress does have the authority to delegate that power. But it is supposed to oversee it, and it doesn’t. Committee hearings are boring.
We have got to shut that whole agency down. Its the only way.
Thanks for replying. Will you please substantiate your assertion above with a reference to specific constitutional clause?
Here's the clause that I reference to substantiate my statement.
Article. I, Section 1:All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
I hope that you're not basing your assertion above on something that activist justices dreamed up.
The states can do their own regulating and cross border negotiating on their own and do it much cheaper.
I’ve long said that I would be happy to volunteer to learn some of the collection and monitoring techniques just because I like to get out in nature. With volunteers you’ll get both conservatives and liberals so you’re likely to get good data one way or the other.
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.