-
The High Price Economy
January 20, 2012 | 28 comments
-
The Future of Europe… REVEALED!
December 30, 2011 | 19 comments
-
Data Divulgers
December 27, 2011 | 9 comments
-
David Cameron's Finest Hour
December 16, 2011 | 13 comments
-
A Federal Black Friday
November 30, 2011 | 23 comments
Special Report
EPA Vote Coming Down to the Wire
Congress set to reject EPA power grab on global warming.
Last year, the EPA announced an enormous power grab on global warming, far exceeding its constitutional authority by rewriting the Clean Air Act and essentially threatening Congress to legislate with the threat of blunt force trauma to the economy. This blatant move annoyed one of the more moderate Republican Senators, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, so much that she announced a resolution to have the EPA's move disapproved by Congress. The vote is today, and it's going to be close. If Sen. Murkowski wins, it will send a clear signal to the Administration and its allies in the green movement that they can't get away with such shenanigans. It's essential that she does.
The EPA's move followed the quixotic decision of the Supreme Court in the case Massachusetts v. EPA to decide that the Clean Air Act, passed in 1970, was intended by Congress to deal with the problem of increasing concentrations of Carbon Dioxide as well as more traditionally regarded air pollutants. The ruling allowed the EPA to regulate fossil fuel emissions. President Obama's EPA jumped at this opportunity, but was faced with a problem.
The plain language of the Clean Air Act would apply the regulations to anyone who emits more than 250 tons of CO2 in a year. That means fast food franchises, apartment buildings. and hospitals would be subject to regulations aimed at clamping down on pollution from large industrial facilities. Even the EPA recognized the absurdity of this result. It took it upon itself to rewrite the law, saying that what the Clean Air Act meant in this case was 25,000 tons, not 250, and issued what it called a "tailoring rule" to this effect. This represents a significant assault on the principle of separation of powers.
The interesting thing is that everyone agrees that the EPA regulations are potentially disastrous. For example, Democratic Senator John D. Rockefeller (WV) has said that "EPA regulation will have an enormous impact on the economic security of West Virginia and our energy future." His colleague Mark Begich of Alaska seemed to agree, saying, "I believe that the EPA's enforcement of the endangerment finding would be clumsier and less targeted than if Congress were to act."
Yet Sen. Begich and many of his colleagues seem to think that the threat of EPA action is a good thing, with him continuing on to say, "We need a comprehensive energy plan and if this keeps the fire under these guys to get something major done, I'm all for it." In other words, he's all for the EPA usurping Congressional authority if it forces Congress to pass something he's in favor of, which leads one to wonder if he'd be so in favor of agency overreach in an area where he didn't approve of the action.
It was exactly this overreach that led Sen. Murkowski to propose her resolution to disapprove the finding on which the EPA based its power grab, a finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. Such a ruling, made under the provisions of the Congressional Review Act, would simply overturn the "legal force and effect" of the finding, and not the reasoning or conclusions. There are plenty of Senators wholly convinced of the reality of man-made global warming who are preparing to vote for the resolution.
Sen. Rockefeller and several of his more realistic Democratic colleagues have said they will support the resolution, which only requires 51 votes to pass. President Obama has already said he will veto the resolution should it pass both Houses, but a vote in favor would still send a strong signal to the Administration -- and the Courts -- about Congressional intent in this area. The vote is on the knife-edge.
Who could be the hero that puts the vote tally over the top? Senator Byrd of West Virginia has often voted in favor of sensible energy policy in the past and could join his colleague Sen. Rockefeller in voting for his state against his President, for which he would be owed many thanks. Yet even his vote might not guarantee approval.
Step forward Senator Scott Brown (R-MA). He has been on the fence on the issue, probably because of his state's role in the underlying court case. But during his election campaign, he said the following:
"I just want to make sure if in fact… the earth is heating up, that we have accurate information, and it's unbiased by scientists with no agenda. Once that's done, then I think we can really move forward with a good plan.''
The EPA made its decision before Climategate or any of the other recent scandals that have revealed how politicized climate science has become. If Sen. Brown wants the really good plan he said he did, he should vote for the motion so that neither the EPA nor Congress takes precipitate, job-destroying action based on shaky science.
Given the bipartisan support for the resolution, it would be appropriate for Sen. Brown, unapologetic truck driver that he is, to cast his vote in favor. If he does so, he will have saved the nation from EPA's regulatory anti-stimulus, and upheld an important constitutional principle to boot.
About the Author
Iain Murray heads the Center for Economic Freedom at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and is the author of Stealing You Blind: How Government Fatcats Are Getting Rich Off of You, new from Regnery.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (28) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Articles by Iain Murray
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/06/10/epa-vote-coming-down-to-the-wi
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Progressive Derangements
- Useless Wonks
- Background to the Financial Crisis
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Carol| 6.10.10 @ 6:46AM
I don't trust any of the senators mentioned in the article. They are ideologues and we found that out with Brown when he voted to go along with Obama's "takeover of Wall Street and the banks and us."
Obama has cast a spell over these people and am afraid they will, like always, vote for Obama instead of against him.
Brian Mc| 6.10.10 @ 7:04AM
The outrages of this government continue to build into a crescendo of deafening proportions. Come November, I'd better hear a collective, "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore" so loud, that it leaves no doubt in the fascists' minds that they overstepped their bounds and have worn out their welcome...or else, this country is doomed to the ash-heap.
Darin| 6.10.10 @ 7:29AM
Should the EPA manage to pull this off, would it be legal? Only Congress has the Consitutional authority to make laws, and the EPA most certainly is NOT Congress. The EPA and its supporters can claim it's only a "change in definition," but when that change has real impact, it results in a change in the law. It's like the police deciding that when a sign says the speed limit is 65, it's to be measured in kilometers/hour rather than miles/hour. Speeding tickets issued under this "change" would be thrown out by the courts.
JP| 6.10.10 @ 2:28PM
The EPA is in fact acting against the Constitution. The Executive does not have the authority to:
a)Enact its own guidelines, and stipulate what it will or will not regulate
b)Declare greenhouse gases a pollutant. This is akin to the IRS deciding tax rates.
Denis O'Malley| 6.14.10 @ 8:21PM
If there is a vote in the Senate and it defeats the Murkowski resolution, the Supreme Court would construe that as approval of the EPA's mandate, I'm afraid. It will take a lawsuit by a State or some person hurt by the EPA rule to start the legal challenge. If more than one State filed suit, it could go to the Supremes, quickly. The easiest way to defeat the Agency would be for the House to deny funding to the EPA; that would do the job.
Lullaby's, Legends and Lies| 6.10.10 @ 7:29AM
"The Clean Air Act would apply the regulations to anyone who emits more than 250 tons of CO2 in a year."
Thank God they changed that to 25,000 tons now, because my old 95 Lincoln Town Car spews 250 tons of CO2 every month of the year (just warming her up).
So Scott Brown had better come down on the right side of this issue, which is against the EPA, and for American jobs!! He's got to remember, that he's only completing old Ted Kennedy's last term, so he's coming up for re-election very fast (in 2012). And he's going to need all the help he can get to keep that seat already (you know the Kennedy's are going to try to get their revenge!!) So he better not turn against the very same people, who helped him pull off his miracle election in the first place, or they'll bail on him in a second. This EPA power grab has got to be stopped dead in its tracks, because I like driving my CO2 spewing Old Town Car!!
Mel Torme| 6.10.10 @ 10:51AM
L,L, and L, we are on the same side of this issue, but I don't agree with your understanding of CO2. Do you know what Carbon Dioxide is? It is one of the two PRODUCTS of burning, not a pollutant and not a BY-PRODUCT.
When you use the word spew (I know you are being facetious, but still...) and speak about your Old Lincoln, you are just inadvertantly agreeing with the global cooling/now warming/ now staying-pretty-much-the-same peoples' arguments. Dude, your Town Car might be emitting, excuse me, spewing ;-}, extra nitrogen-oxygen compounds (NOx's) which are truly pollutants. By "pollutant", I mean something that is harmful to one who breathes it. Your land yacht may be spewing some particulates too. Please don't use the new definition of pollution, made up by the global hoax crowd. They may make conservative talk a pollutant next year.
The newest gasoline or diesel car off the lot is going to produce plenty of CO2, see? The trees, bushes, grass and weed (oops, weeds) are very glad to get this additional CO2, BTW. If they could speak, they would thank all operators of internal combustion and turbine engines profusely. Thank you, thank you, thank you!! Thank you sir, may I have another 25,000 tons.
Scott Brown is gonna screw us, I'm pretty sure.
Michael L. Hauschild| 6.10.10 @ 7:40AM
The new guidelines of the revamped EPA (“P” will stand for Palin) will entail BP injecting defeated incumbents democrats into the spewing gulf well head. This will be the first time in history that a blowout will fix a blowout.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.10.10 @ 10:17AM
First, the EPA should call for cuts in the size of federal agencies, and complete elimination of others like the Department of Energy and the Department of Commerce. This would reduce the carbon footprint of the federal government. In fact, the EPA should voluntarily agree to a 50% cut in the EPA which would show leadership.
Of course none of this will happen because it isn't about carbon, it's about unbridled power. Well, perhaps the EPA will get their wings clipped.
They should get their budget cut. And today.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.10.10 @ 10:17AM
First, the EPA should call for cuts in the size of federal agencies, and complete elimination of others like the Department of Energy and the Department of Commerce. This would reduce the carbon footprint of the federal government. In fact, the EPA should voluntarily agree to a 50% cut in the EPA which would show leadership.
Of course none of this will happen because it isn't about carbon, it's about unbridled power. Well, perhaps the EPA will get their wings clipped.
They should get their budget cut. And today.
Ken Roberts| 6.10.10 @ 2:48PM
They also need to make a law that the Czar's have no power to institute law either or we will be at their mercy. I agree if we don't take congress back and the senate we are done .
Ken Roberts | 6.10.10 @ 2:56PM
The use of the term Co2 is and has been made into a different word meaning a poisonous gas which it is not; except if you pump into the ground into a cave and it escapes all at once you will see the people in the surrounding area drop like flies, not from being poisoned but merely having all the oxygen replaced by Co2 . If Co2 were a poison gas then we would all be dead as we expel the gas as we breathe out . So according to the EPA we could commit murder just by breathing on someone. You could call it the breath of death ! ha ha ha, (humor) for those who did not get it . I have had better days .
ELA DAVE| 6.10.10 @ 4:39PM
LLL your car does not 'spew' out a lot of CO2 when warming up. CO2 is what the catalytic converters was invented for (well NOx primarily but also CO2). So the maximum production of CO2 is when your car is running at maximum efficiency. It is considered the 'Good' gas of all gases coming out the tailpipe. Just thought you needed some education, that's all.
Lullaby's, Legends and Lies| 6.10.10 @ 7:45PM
ELA / MEL: I'm just being sarcastic that's all, I'm a New Yorker after all, and sometimes I can't help myself!! I make this joke to my soldiers all the time when talking about my "land yacht" (I like that one Mel). I always tell them, that I just can't handle the cold like I used too, so I'm just doing my small part in promoting Global Warming now (spewing CO2)!! It's obvious to them, that I'm being sarcastic, but I guess maybe it doesn't translate well, when I try to post it. I'll make it more apparent if I use it again, okay? Trust me, I don't buy into any of this AGW crap!!
Mel Torme| 6.10.10 @ 8:10PM
LLL, I knew you didn't buy into this AGW crap just from reading your posts in the past. I also can take a joke. However, what I see is that we don't have a super chemistry-aware public (or physics or math or biology, let's just say science and math) and the journalists are on the low end of any scale of knowledge of the world (say, between the morons and the imbeciles, but a lot closer to the imbeciles).
So, what happens is that the left-wingers who do know better will use the terms like "emissions", "pollution", etc. for something that doesn't fit. Imagine "water emissions from evaporation", and that's about as stupid. Then many people who don't know better start to believe this hoax due to their seriously lacking scientific background. Part of this stupid-people contingent are the journalists.
But, jokes are jokes, and I know we all know better here, right PurpleGuy? eh? Hello?? His fingers are moving, but there's nothing coming out of his modem. huh.
Marc Jeric| 6.10.10 @ 4:59PM
All wrong - our communist Congress has given up its constitutional duty to set budgets; it is now in EPA hands, firmly controlled by our eco-nazis. This conspiracy is now 40 years old. It started in the 1970's with global cooling scam; it continued in the 1990's with the global warming hoax; then in the 2000's it transformed itself into the climate change flimflam; and now we got cap & trade power grab with no congressional involvement. All of this supported by fake data and calculations performed by government-paid drones.
tiffany| 6.11.10 @ 1:29AM
I don't trust any of the senators mentioned in the article.
Tenn Slim| 6.11.10 @ 5:45AM
Opine
EPA Attempts to impose their will on Congress comes straight out of the CPUSA agenda, the Moveon agenda, Code Pinks Agenda, Democratic Strategist agenda and the Leftists' Overall agendas as outlined by the Center for American Progress. Buried in ALL of these agendas is the demise of the Energy Production Process in the USA. These agendas want coal use outlawed, gas utilisation out, oil drilling stopped, and a return to the serfdom of the Middle Ages. Nothing less will suffice. These agendas are partly driven by a desire to impose revenge for Conservative Values being the foundation of their angst and partly a means to secure control & power over the USA Electorate as serfs.
Now. One could make the case that this idea is simply preprosterous (sic), but consider.
Unemployment is averaging out at a continuous 10+%. Illegal Immigration continues unabated. The Czarist Agencies continue to impose, unregulated, non oversighted rules across the Production Spectrum of the USA. These are felt as thorns in the side, but enough arrows will mean a meltdown. Give the EPA this one small victory and the avalanch will flow. Currently sitting on the side of the Economic Mountain, this EPA Regulatory Avanlanch will cover the USA Economy in a deadly smothering blanket of rules that will take eons to overcome.
Nevertheless. We WILL Prevail
Semper Fi
end
fkd| 7.1.10 @ 4:55AM
shanghai massage