The Hill E2 wire reports:
House GOP spending bill prohibits funding for EPA climate regs
A government spending bill unveiled Friday night by House Republicans would prohibit funding for Environmental Protection Agency climate regulations through September of this year.
The continuing resolution, which would fund the government through the end of the fiscal year, is the latest attempt by Republicans to stop EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Republicans argue that pending EPA climate rules will destroy the economy and result in significant job losses. GOP lawmakers, including House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.), have introduced legislation to permanently block the agency’s climate authority.
The bill would block funding for all current and pending EPA climate regulations for stationary sources.
Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), the chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee on interior and the environment, said he worked closely on the language with Upton. He said the language would give Upton time to move forward with his legislation.
“It has become clear to me in talking to the job creators in this country that allowing these regulations to go into effect would prevent job creation and inhibit economic growth at a time when our economy is still struggling,” Simpson said in a statement. “It should be up to Congress, not the Administration, to determine whether and how to regulate greenhouse gases, and in attempting to do so without congressional authority, I’m concerned that EPA has overreached.”
The continuing resolution makes massive cuts to the EPA’s budget. The legislation cuts EPA funding by $3 billion, 29 percent below fiscal year 2010. Overall, Simpson cut $4.5 billion from his subcommittee’s budget.
Full report here: House GOP spending bill prohibits funding for EPA climate regs
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Its a start!!!
Can ANYONE explain to me why the EPA needs roughly $10 billion for their budget anyway? I would think $1 billion would be too much. No wonder the US is drowning in debt.
The justifications for voting against it might be fun to read.
What Lance said.
But won’t these cuts hurt the porn industry? For example: http://www.black-and-right.com/2009/01/28/government-porn/
Whoo Hoo !
Let me send you, over the big basin, my heartfelt congratularions on your cultural enlightenment!
EPA budget goes backwards.
Jackson does moonwalk.
Obama sez thinking of (heads of) families, he’ll Vito Corleone the Bill
Excellent news!
Open debate! Nice.
John
Money talks.
The oil companies with loads of money backed the CO2 horse – which they owned and doped to high heaven by funding the weak, misguided researchers they wanted.
Three hard Northern Hemispheres later nobody believes their BS except those who were brainwashed by reading Hansen et al‘s science fiction.
The developed world needs to build coal-to-liquid plants as soon as possible.
Carbon indulgences are properly losing their fake credibility:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-10/ice-applies-bigger-haircuts-on-emission-permits-used-as-collateral.html?cmpid=msnmoney
Turning cheap and plentiful coal into the liquid fuel we use will be a disaster for “Big Oil” which is why they’re pushing the climate change nonsense.
Thank you Rep. Fred Upton, Mike Simpson and the House Republicans.
This is good news, it’s a start, sanity is starting the slow and steady creep back into America and hopefully the rest of the world.
While I have never thought much of the Republicans since Ike, I am starting to like what I see.
Best news I’ve heard for years! Thank gof for the US – now all we need is for the UK to wake up – fat chance!
Cheers
Douglas
Whatever side of the AGW controversy anyone is on, would we all agree it is most appropriate that congress is in the critical detailed chain of command . . . not replaced by a self-reinforcing bureaucracy like the EPA? Does anyone think the EPA hires skeptical thinkers?
John
I want Waxman, Pelosi,and Hoyer on the record. On this the engineers of Cap’n tax.
Now. Good for the Pubbies, bring it on!
The house wants to cut EPA 29% and the PROTUS will veto? Sounds good to me, no funding is better then some! pg
Big oil brought on the CO2 limits and funded the CO2 hysteria?
Utter hogwash!
Oil is used for less than 2% of electric power generation, over 68% is coal – the “fixed plants” that this legislation refers removes EPA CO2 limits from.
Pelosi’s oil exploration limits and her anti-CO2 policies and laws beginning in 2007 brought the recession that led to Obama’s Nov 2008 election. This is only a very small step in the right direction of a full recovery of a reasonable energy policy.
BBBut…who’s going to fund the IPCC? NASA-GISS? Trips to Bali and Cancun? The hysterical, manic climate press releases? Big pay raises and benefits packages for the climate elites? RealClimate’s website…oops that’s already covered by George Soros.
Let’s thank Sen. Inhofe for never once relenting or compromising, during times when it seemed he was the only voice in the Congressional wilderness.
Having read a little more I’m putting the cork back in the Bubbly bottle maybe/ yes we definitely do we need a lot tougher medicine, it’s time to play hard ball.
I just read Steve Milloy, at Green hell blog and he has his pulse on this EPA and the Obama administration determination to shut down the economy.
Steve writes:
Does the GOP have a secret strategy? Has it forgotten the election? Or is it afraid of the EPA?
Senate and House Republicans just announced plans to introduce legislation stripping the EPA of its authority to regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs). That sounds encouraging?
But the reality is that even if such a bill winds up on President Obama’s desk, he’ll veto it, and there aren’t enough Republicans to override a veto.
At best, these bills are political theater intended for impact in 2012. But the EPA isn’t waiting until then.
Its best (and really only) shot at reeling in the arrogant Obama EPA is to cut the agency’s funding. Without House approval, the EPA has no budget. A great opportunity to choke off EPA funding arrives early next month when last December’s deal to fund the federal government until March 4 expires.
Read more @ur momisugly http://greenhellblog.com/2011/02/09/defund-the-epa/
or Article in The Washington Times @ur momisugly http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/9/defund-the-epa/
We need to push this at a political level.
Good move!!
Regulators should not have a blank check to write back door laws by regulation.
Enabling legislation for regulatory agencies like the EPA need to include a mandatory periodic review of regulations by the legislative branch, and re-affirmation of their regulatory authority and the regulations that they write.
No matter how well intentioned a group is, over time, unlimited authority to issue regulations will be abused as the regulations slowly morph into more and more restrictive versions with more and more unintended consequences and intentionally planted back doors to further regulation.
Keep regulatory agencies on a short leash and a tight budget. Make them prove they server a useful purpose on a periodic audit of their authority, regulations and methods.
To do otherwise is to leave the cookie jar unattended in a room of hungry kids.
Larry
Too bad this will be vetoed by the President, eh?
FergalR says:
Excuse me? Do you actually believe this???
Who else has the capital to build these processing plants, who else has the transportation and distribution systems to exploit them?
Big Oil.
It used to be that people thought the Oil Sands here were going to be developed by “someone else”, shutting down “Big Oil”. Not even remotely close. A few startups worked on developing extraction technology, then sold it to Big Oil and walked away wealthy.
Big Oil will always be Big Oil. And instead of ranting against them, any sane individual will have Big Oil front and center in their portfolio.
Go go go GOP! Makes me proud to be a Republican again!