Congress looking to put the kibosh on GHG related taxes

Environmental journalism supports the protecti...

Image via Wikipedia

Energy Tax Prevention Act Would Put the Reins on EPA Power Grab

Freedom Action Supports Quick Passage

Washington, D.C., March 10, 2011 —A House subcommittee on Thursday is expected to mark up a bill, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, sponsored by Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) that would block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions using the Clean Air Act.  Freedom Action supports enactment of their critical legislation.

“The Energy Tax Prevention Act is one of the most important bills that Congress will vote on this year.  We applaud Chairmen Upton and Whitfield for their efforts to move it quickly to the House floor.  The future economic prosperity of America is at stake,” said Myron Ebell, Director of Freedom Action.

Under the Obama administration, EPA has been moving forward with new Clean Air Act regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  The new regulations will do nothing to reduce global levels of the gases alleged to cause global warming, but will raise energy prices, make consumers poorer, and destroy jobs in manufacturing and other energy-intensive industries.

“The Obama Administration’s EPA is trying to implement cap-and-trade, which was defeated in Congress and overwhelmingly rejected by the American people, through the regulatory back door.  And as President Obama promised during the 2008 campaign, under his plan ‘electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket,’” Ebell concluded.

“The debate on EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations boils down to a very simple issue. Who shall determine the content and direction of national policy — elected representatives accountable to the people at the ballot box, or non-elected bureaucrats, trial lawyers, and activist judges appointed for life? The Constitution permits only one answer to that question,” said Marlo Lewis, Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an affiliate organization to Freedom Action.

h/t to Bob Ferguson SPPI

About these ads

48 thoughts on “Congress looking to put the kibosh on GHG related taxes

  1. “The debate on EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations boils down to a very simple issue. Who shall determine the content and direction of national policy[?]”

    Let’s hope a deliberative body takes the lead.

  2. Absolutely! Energy taxes are job killers! Government intrusion on incentives to create private business must be absolutely curtailed. Let’s hope this drive to reduce governmental intrusions into controlling how US citizens wish to conduct business extends to other areas of private life.

  3. Well, I’m glad to see this come to a vote, but it won’t survive a veto. At least, we’ll have people on record as to yea and nay.

  4. on issues we all care about,could this site have links to proper reps to contact for support? we are all busy and this would save time on research.

  5. Will this get the 60 votes needed to get a senate vote? Will it get the 51 votes needed to get senate approval? Will the president veto it?

    Hurdle #1, getting house approval, is likely, but the remaining three hurdles are quite iffy.

    There appears to be some support from coal and rust belt democrats in the senate, but that so far looks only capable providing enough votes for the second senate vote, but not enough to get a floor vote on the bill itself.

    Even if it can get senate passage, it may still require reconciliation with the house and then finally it must get signed by Obama to become law.

    Sorry about the wet blanket, but it needs to be understood that the US system is not as simple as the unicameral parliamentary systems used elsewhere.

  6. Johnboy. Just go to this site and input your Zip – that will send you to your various representatives and give you an e-mail link to contact them. You may beable to get to other representatives.

  7. Rhoda R says:
    March 9, 2011 at 6:25 pm

    Johnboy. Just go to this site and input your Zip – that will send you to your various representatives and give you an e-mail link to contact them. You may beable to get to other representatives.
    ===============================================

    Oops, missed an anchor!
    Rhoda was probably referring to this site………. it may be useful to book mark it. But, that’s only for the House.

    https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

    Here’s another useful site….. http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

    Bookmark that one also.

  8. It’s a “win” regardless. It the Senate blocks it, then everyone will know who did what when it comes time to vote for the next Senate. If Obama vetoes it, then everyone knows where he stands – and this time he won’t be able to to claim he is only taxing foreigners like he has done with the new “inspection fee” that is assessed to those entering the United States – just another hidden tax but paid by non-US citizens. Clever. But a veto that increases taxation of the American public. That is a different kettle of fish.

  9. These warmists want power at any price. In Australia, the opposition that won 700,000 more votes , opposes the carbon tax. The government opposed before the election but is going for it 6 months later. One of the opposition’s members, who worked for Goldman Sachs , is having private meetings with independents that hold the balance of power to white ant the leader of the opposition, it would seem. Despite the fact, his warmists policy was soundly defeated and he was deposed as leader before the election, he continues to seek a carbon tax or ETS.
    So power by any means seems to go with the alarmists. One of the things he supported in the government’s ETS was for carbon police to have powers to enter your house at any time with or without a warrant or your permission. Further, the right to silence was abolished and you could only be found guilty.
    This has nothing to do with CO2. It is about power. In Australia, the Greens received 13% of the vote but they are dictating policy to our Prime Minister, who is a thirsty horse being led to the tax trough.

  10. I love the idea! But all of the bills like this are just dress rehearsals for 2 years from now, when we’ll have a new Senate and a new President.

    till then, nothing good can happen.

  11. Soon there could be thousands of Australians, Brits, Americans (and if it ever gets warm enough) Canadians in the streets reminding the politicians and the bureaucrats where the power really lies … with the people.

    I suppose if I were an anti-fossil fuel person, I might be on the edge of panic right now with so much gas being available that it is selling below $4 thousand cubic feet and the Australians, Chinese and other countries are buying into North American plays and experimenting with turning natural gas into gasoline; and looking at Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) plants to export it out of North America where natural gas has a higher price.

    Increase the local taxes on use of fossil fuels, and watch the resource migrate to a zone of lesser taxes or higher profitability for the suppliers. I have watched it cycle many times in my 65 years. Workers and equipment are highly mobile.

    http://247wallst.com/2009/03/12/natural-gas-prices-driven-by-lng-imports-dvn-chk/

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/global/lngmarket.html

    http://www.nytimes.com/info/natural-gas/

  12. If Earth’s atmosphere and oceans cool more while the EPA and the President are delayed by the House of Representatives – so much the better. Dr. Christy’s site suggests the atmosphere is still cooling if you go there and run the program the ‘unadjusted’ number for the 14,000 ft Ch#5 data. Just now the most recent date is March 7 and the temperature is below average and 0.73 deg C cooler than this day last year.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/daily-monitoring-of-global-average-temperatures/

    Nino 3.4 is still about -1 and the maps still show a lot of cool SST

    Bob Tisdale did an update Monday, 3/7.

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/

  13. EPA is not allowed to assess fees or taxes beyond those already authorized. These nut cases are going the kamikaze route.

  14. This is a really good thing for them to do.

    Next they need to rescind the RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD.

    With this mandate still in place and in effect, states are compelled to meet stupid, expensive, and unworkable renewable energy percentages by certain dates. These are the standards that the cap and trade bill was planned to impose. so, the bottom line is that the administration is still situated to kill our economy and create a forever recession.

    RPS has to be cancelled!

  15. The House Repubs have said they’ll attach restrictions to every funding bill they put through, so the Senate and WH will be forced to reject everything if they want the EPA and HC etc. to carry on carrying on. That’s where the House’s funding authority rubber meets the road.

  16. If this bill were to get through both houses, the question arises of whether Obama will exercise his power of veto on it. Currently all his green inititives are stalled and indeed he’s not done much to get them back on track; in effect, he’s abandoned them.

    The EPA, for reasons best known to themselves, took the risk of trying to implement them through the back door. The risk looks to have crystalised and one way or another, they’re going to get hammered by the legislature.

    In the run up to next years presidential election, why should Obama take a bullet for the EPA?

    Pointman

  17. What seems interesting is the effect of taxing CO2 in Australia. This will have the effect of raising the price of energy intensive industries in Australia as compared to neighboring China and India. Over time, these industries will leave Australia for India and China, resulting in less CO2 production in Australia. However, as India and China produce more CO2 per unit of energy than does Australia, there will actually be a net increase in CO2 worldwide. Because CO2 is well mixed, the net effect of CO2 taxes on Australia will be a net increase in CO2 over Australia, largely imported from China and India on the wind. The Law of Unintended Consequences at work, also known as “why climate scientists should not design national energy programs”.

  18. I hope there are a few Brit MPs watching what’s going on in the US. With few notable exceptions (who are ignored) they haven’t shown ony kind of backbone to stand up to this alarmist stupidity because they have bought into it in the worst possible way. In Scotland 3.7 jobs are lost for every “green” one created and, like the rest of Britain, is facing a chronic energy crisis yet still the barmy political army are pressing ahead with wind farms.

    Absolute madness…

  19. Crippling taxes on energy via the EPA are one of the few areas the President actually has his mind made up on.
    “Necessarily skyrocket” are hard words, and leave little to the imagination.

  20. “…Because CO2 is well mixed, the net effect of CO2 taxes on Australia will be a net increase in CO2 over Australia, largely imported from China and India on the wind. The Law of Unintended Consequences at work, also known as “why climate scientists should not design national energy programs”.”

    I would not say this is Unintended. There are 2 groups:
    1. Those who actually beleive in AGW will say “at least it’s a start” and “as Chindia develops they will cut their emissions” (thus providing further evidence of the fall in standards of western education….)
    2. Those who want the tax$/green$, well why would they care.

  21. The EPA needs to police pollution. unfortunateley for them Carbon Dioxide is anything but pollution. Do you know of another type of pollution that causes trees to grow?

  22. Geez -

    something just not right when we have to protect ourselves from a “protection” agency.

    An agency that determines that CO2 is a polutant needs to step back, take a deep breath, and then not exhale. Then, tell us again how CO2 is a polutant, but do it in writing because they are still holding their breath. Wouldn’t, couldn’t, shouldn’t exhale CO2 – that’s just not prudent.

    /grin

  23. Things like this show what bad shape our country is in. But, with so many on the take it’s hard to get rid of the ones causing the problems.

  24. Regarding non-CO2 polluting energy sources, it will be interesting to see if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will get involved with Rossi’s demonstration of his 1MW power plant. They’re caught in a catch-22 situation:

    A Demonstration in the USA

    In the past Andrea Rossi has stated that there would be no additional public demos until the one megawatt plant opened in Greece. However, this may no longer be the plan. Jed Rothwell who runs the LENR-CANR website (which is an online database of cold fusion information) and is a long time and well trusted cold fusion researcher has reported the following news: “Rossi told me he will demonstrate the device before shipping it to Greece.”

    If a demonstration is held in the USA it will probably be in Florida, because the 125 modules that will compose the 1MW plant are being manufactured in Miami, Florida. Rossi also has a factory and lab in New Hampshire, but it would not make sense to ship all 125 units twice (if the demonstration in the USA would be of the complete 1MW system).

    In addition to being exciting, a demonstration could potentially create a very interesting situation that could be a win-win for Rossi. A demonstration of a 1MW system would be very impressive and difficult to deny as being something extraordinary. However, there has been speculation that it might be very difficult for him to get approval to use his reactors in the USA due to safety concerns. What if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or another agency tried to come in and stop the demo? That could be a win for Rossi, because they would have to admit they were concerned about the exotic nature of his technology. If the NRC stepped in they would be forced to admit that the E-Cat is indeed a NUCLEAR and NON-CHEMICAL technology! Otherwise, they would have no jurisdiction. The NRC has no power to regulate performing tests of chemical reactions involving nickel and hydrogen. Any interference could equal instant validation!

    http://pesn.com/2011/03/07/9501782_Cold_Fusion_Steams_Ahead_at_Worlds_Oldest_University/

  25. Darren Parker says:
    March 10, 2011 at 4:28 am

    The EPA needs to police pollution. unfortunateley for them Carbon Dioxide is anything but pollution. Do you know of another type of pollution that causes trees to grow?

    Yes I do and I describe it in my “Ode to Sheen”:

    I woke up this morning and found Sheen on my sheets, Sheen in my shower, and Sheen on my shoes. I found a layer of Sheen on my car, and the road to work had a fresh dusting of Sheen, too! My gosh, there was Sheen EVERYWHERE! It was on my computer screen, crumbs of Sheen were on my keyboard, and Sheen filled my wastebasket. It wasn’t until I finally flushed Sheen in the bathroom that I had hope there would be an end to… um… Sheen!

  26. Good, good, good. Democrats, especially senators who vote against this bill, including Obama with his veto pen need to ask themselves before voting if they feel lucky today in terms of their future political careers. Voting for Cap n’ Trade didn’t work out so well for them last time, and Obama only got in because McIdiot was also in favor of Cap n’ Trade.

  27. The house generates is the source of all spending and budgets. This regulation can be attached to a bill that will pass and it becomes law. The taxes by the EPA are illegal. They will give friends waivers and make punitive taxes on others. Obamacare is now extending a lot of waivers. The EPA will also do waiver favors.

  28. It is good that someone is putting a boot on the neck of the EPA but there is something more Important -Decertify the 2008 Presidential Election and put two boots on the neck of Obama.
    This is the time for states rights to prevail !
    Is the election of Barrack Obama Legal?

    The election of a president is the collective action of the United States of America. Each state has a collective number of votes that are cast for the person directed by the electorate (common interpretation) of the state for a person that meets the requirements stated in the Constitution. If the person nominated for the job has not provided proof of his eligibility, then is he legally president?
    Can a state decertify the votes of its electoral college until it has received adequate proof of the eligibility of the candidate(s) (such as president)? This is the responsibility of the state legislatures or the Secretary of State. It is not the responsibility of the U.S. Congress.
    If enough or many states decertify their votes of their electoral college then will that overturn the election? Should Ohio, Arizona, Alaska, Texas, and Florida be the first to Decertify there Electoral College votes for the 2008 Presidential Election?
    It is time to take action- call or write to your state’s Secretary of State and request a Freedom of Information request form. Then file the form and request copies of the documents that the Democratic Party filed to certifiy that Barach Obama was their candidate for President. If you get the information review it to see if it states that Barach Obama meets the Constitutional requirements to be President.

    If the information does not state that Barach Obama meets the requirements then the above referenced action should be done.
    Decertify the 2008 Presidential Election and let the chips fall where they may.
    List of SOS phone numbers – you can also get to their web-site to get their E_mail addresses.

    Is the election of Barrack Obama Legal?

    Decertify there Electoral College votes for the 2008 Presidential Election?
    It is time to take action- call or write to your state’s Secretary of State and request a Freedom of Information request form. Then file the form and request copies of the documents that the Democratic Party filed to certifiy that Barach Obama was their candidate for President. If you get the information review it to see if it states that Barach Obama meets the Constitutional requirements to be President.

    If the information does not state that Barach Obama meets the requirements then the above referenced action should be done.
    Decertify the 2008 Presidential Election and let the chips fall where they may.
    List of SOS phone numbers – you can also get to their web-site to get their E_mail addresses.

    Secretary of State offices register corporations, limited liability companies (LLC’s), partnerships, business mergers and acquisitions, and articles of dissolution. For your convenience, here are quick links and phone numbers for the Secretary of State offices for all U.S. states plus and territories: Alabama Secretary of State, 334-242-7200

    Alabama Secretary of StateP.O. Box 5616Montgomery, Alabama 36103-5616

    Alaska Secretary of State, 907-465-2530
    550 West 7th Avenue, Suite 1500
    Anchorage, AK 99501-3567
    Investigations Phone: (907) 269-8437 Investigations Fax: (907) 269-8195
    Email: investigations@alaska.gov

    Arizona Secretary of State, 602-542-3230
    The Honorable Ken Bennett
    Secretary of State
    1700 West Washington Street, 7th Floor
    Phoenix, AZ 85007-2888

    Arkansas Secretary of State, 501-682-1010
    State Capitol, RM 256
    Little Rock, AR 72201

    California Secretary of State, 916-653-3795 secretary.bowen@sos.ca.gov
    California Secretary of State
    1500 11th Street
    Sacramento, CA 95814
    Colorado Secretary of State, 303-894-2251

    1700 Broadway, Denver CO 80290

    secretary@sos.state.co.us

    Connecticut Secretary of State, 203-566-3216
    Secretary of the State
    PO Box 150470
    Hartford, CT 06115-0470
    sots.webmaster@ct.gov
    Delaware Secretary of State302-739-4111
    District of Columbia Secretary of State, 202-727-7278
    Office of the Secretary
    1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room 419
    Washington, DC 20004 (202) 727-6306
    Florida Secretary of State, 904-488-9000
    secretaryofstate@dos.state.fl.us
    Georgia Secretary of State, 404-656-2817
    214 State Capitol
    Atlanta, GA 30334
    Guam Government Site
    Hawaii Secretary of State, 808-586-2727
    The Honorable Brian Schatz
    Lieutenant Governor, State of Hawai`i
    State Capitol
    Honolulu, Hawai`i 96813

    Phone:(808) 586-0255
    Fax: (808) 586-0231
    Email: brian.schatz@hawaii.gov

    Idaho Secretary of State, 208-334-2300

    Illinois Secretary of State, 217-782-7880
    Jesse White
    213 State Capitol
    Springfield, IL 62756
    Indiana Secretary of State, 317-232-6576
    E-mail: constituent@sos.IN.gov
    Address:
    200 W. Washington St., Room 201
    Indianapolis, IN 46204
    Iowa Secretary of State, 515-281-5204
    sos@sos.state.ia.us
    1007 East Grand Avenue
    Room 105, State Capitol
    Des Moines, IA 50319
    Kansas Secretary of State, 913-296-2236
    sos@sos.ks.gov
    Kansas Secretary of State
    Memorial Hall, 1st Floor
    120 SW 10th Avenue
    Topeka, KS 66612-1594
    (785) 296-4564
    Kentucky Secretary of State, 502-564-2848
    Louisiana Secretary of State, 504-925-4704
    Maine Secretary of State, 207-287-3676
    Maryland Secretary of State, 410-225-1330
    Massachusetts Secretary of State, 617-727-9640
    Michigan Secretary of State, 517-334-6206
    Minnesota Secretary of State, 612-296-2803 business.services@state.mn.us
    Mississippi Secretary of State, 601-359-1333
    Missouri Secretary of State, 314-751-1310
    Montana Secretary of State, 406-444-3665
    Nebraska Secretary of State, 402-471-4079
    Nevada Secretary of State, 702-687-5203
    Secretary of State
    Nevada State Capitol Building
    101 North Carson Street, Suite 3
    Carson City, NV 89701
    Phone: 775-684-5708
    FAX: 775-684-5725*
    Email: sosmail@sos.nv.gov
    New Hampshire Secretary of State, 603-271-3242
    New Jersey Secretary of State, 609-530-6400
    New Mexico Secretary of State, 505-827-4508
    New York Secretary of State, 518-474-4752
    North Carolina Secretary of State, 919-733-4201
    North Dakota Secretary of State, 701-328-4284
    Ohio Secretary of State, 614-466-3910
    Oklahoma Secretary of State, 405-521-3911
    Oregon Secretary of State, 503-986-2200
    Pennsylvania Secretary of State, 717-787-1057
    Puerto Rico Secretary of State, 787-722-2121
    Rhode Island Secretary of State, 401-277-2357
    South Carolina Secretary of State, 803-734-2158
    South Dakota Secretary of State, 605-773-4845
    Tennessee Secretary of State615-741-2286
    Texas Secretary of State, 512-463-5555
    Utah Secretary of State, 801-530-4849
    Vermont Secretary of State, 802-828-2386
    Virgin Islands Secretary of State, 340-776-8515
    Virginia Secretary of State, 804-371-9141
    Washington Secretary of State, 360-725-0377
    West Virginia Secretary of State, 304-558-8000
    Wisconsin Secretary of State, 608-266-3590
    Wyoming Secretary of State, 307-777-7311

  29. pat says:
    March 9, 2011 at 9:59 pm

    EPA is not allowed to assess fees or taxes beyond those already authorized. These nut cases are going the kamikaze route.

    In addition to fees and taxes, they can impose regulatory mandates that can be far more costly than the fees and taxes. Failure to spend the big bucks to comply will also get you slapped with huge fines. Fees and taxes are just the tip of the iceberg when dealing with the EPA.

  30. For such a great self proclaimed democracy as the USA it would appear that a presedential veto turns you into an autocracy. No such problems in the UK. I would be worried about that if I were you guys, if he can veto what he likes , what can he start if he likes, WW111? Doesn’t seem right.

  31. Greg Holmes says:
    March 10, 2011 at 9:02 am

    For such a great self proclaimed democracy as the USA it would appear that a presedential veto turns you into an autocracy. No such problems in the UK. I would be worried about that if I were you guys, if he can veto what he likes , what can he start if he likes, WW111? Doesn’t seem right.

    Your concerns are valid, however, we aren’t supposed to be living in a “democracy”. This was made clear very early on:

    “At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: “Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” “A republic, if you can keep it” responded Franklin.”

    A “democracy” is something many of us have been fighting for a long time. Contrary to popular belief, a “democracy” isn’t what it’s all cracked up to be–a republic is the optimum form of government.

  32. Brian H says:
    The House Repubs have said they’ll attach restrictions to every funding bill they put through, so the Senate and WH will be forced to reject everything if they want the EPA and HC etc. to carry on carrying on. That’s where the House’s funding authority rubber meets the road.

    Nice sentiment, if they have (and maintain) the will to stick to it. Past actions would seem to indicate otherwise. Watch how quickly they cave once the media starts harping about the Evil Republicans shutting down government because they aren’t getting their way.

  33. I can’t imagine a worse decision than this, further evidence that part of the US Congress is firmly planted in the past and unable to foresee easily forecastable events.We deserve much better.

  34. RE: BC CARBON TAXES ON FOSSILS FUELS

    RE: THE BC COMMUNIST MANIFESTO

    In NA, BC is the first jurisidiction to levy hefty carbon taxes on fossil fuels. Here are the current rates based upon a tax of $20 per tonne of CO2 equivalent as of July 1, 2010:

    Gasoline 4.45 ¢/litre
    Diesel 5.11
    Jet Fuel 5.22
    Propane 3.08

    Natural Gas 3.80 ¢/cubic metre

    Coal, high heat value 41.54 $/tonne
    Coal, low heat value 35.54 $/tonne

    Note the apparent low tax rate on nat gas. The actual tax is $0.9932 per gigajoule of BC nat gas which costs $4.568 per gigajoule. That is tax rate of 21.7%

    On July 1, 2012 the the carbon tax will increase to $30 per tonne of CO2 equivalent.

    There are no free passes on fossil fuel carbon taxes although low income wager earners receive a carbon tax rebate. For industry and commerce there are complex rules and regulations for computing and paying carbon taxes.

    If a government can levy taxes on fossil fuels and control the emission of GHG’s, that goverment can:

    1. Sieze control of the means of productions of goods and services.

    2. Control of the production of goods and services.

    3. Redistribute wealth.

    4. Control of every aspect of the lives and affairs of the people.

    You can view and download the BC Communist Manifesto from:

    http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/cas/cap.html#cap

    ATTN: AMERICAN YANKEES

    PLEASE FORWARD THIS COMMENT BY EMAIL AND FAX TO YOUR MEMBERS OF THE US CONGRESS AND STATE LEGISLATURES.

    ATTN: AUSTRALIANS AND NEW ZEALANDERS

    PLEASE FORWARD THIS COMMENT BY EMAIL AND FAX TO YOUR ELECTED MEMBERS OF THE VARIOUS LEVELS GOVERNMENT

    Once the People understand the true intent of the UN and its front orgainzation the IPCC, the People with scythes, pitchforks and torches will be in the streets demanding a purge of the Communists from their governments.

  35. “4:02pm EST

    By Timothy Gardner

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A bill to stop the Environmental Protection Agency’s greenhouse gas rules passed a first step in the Republican-led House of Representatives on Thursday.

    The House Energy and Commerce subcommittee passed the bill by voice vote that would block the EPA from regulating big carbon dioxide polluters such as oil refineries and power plants. The measure will next be sent to the full House Energy and Commerce Committee.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/10/house-gop-epa-climate-bill_n_834256.html

  36. Next, States to declare CO2 a non pollutant and tell the Feds’ EPA to shove it. What would the EPA do?

  37. Anthony,

    It could be very instructive if some friends of this site looked at the actual Endangerment Finding of US EPA as published in the Federal Register here:

    http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/Federal_Register-EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171-Dec.15-09.pdf

    I suggest that you readers start with the Introduction Overview that cites the different claims about the impact of GHG on Major heat waves, hurricanes, allergenic responses etc. that support the Administrator’s decision. It reads like an Al Gore novel. Many of these claims have already been debunked by peer literature. Readers of WUWT could effectively inform Congress on why the substance of the basis for the Endangerment Finding are misleading and sourced to entities like the IPPC (which is cited).

    The above link is a stand-alone amusement piece if the impact were not so serious. It does not cite any independent EPA documentation. It shows this finding was made on the basis of the drama of this issue rather than facts.

  38. ge0050
    Here is an example of how carbon dioxide taxes will cripple Australian Industry.
    The following is from the Morningstar “Your Money Weekly” journal dated last Friday.

    Ian Huntley comments:
    Consider our BlueScope analyst, Mathew Hodge’s comments on the carbon tax proposals: “The imposition of a carbon tax without adequate compensation for Australian steel makers places the industry at risk. Steel is already one of the most competitive businesses in the world. Margins are razor thin and Australian companies are just hanging on through what are very difficult times. BlueScope’s Port Kembla steel works were loss making in 1H11. There is no substitute for coking coal – carbon – in the production of new steel. Every tonne of steel requires about 0.8t of coal which translates to nearly 2t of carbon dioxide. A modest $25/t carbon tax adds $50/t to steel making costs. Even in the heady days of the pre-GFC boom, BSL’s EBIT margins were less than $200/t and we don’t expect them to recover to anything like that in the future. A carbon tax will take a huge bite out of Australian steel profits for questionable environmental benefit. Placing an additional tax on Australian steel while allowing imports to avoid it will see steel making moved offshore to countries with less stringent laws. It makes no sense to ship coal and iron ore to China only to have it return as steel. If anything, carbon emissions will go up under this scenario. Hopefully common sense will prevail. ”
    END QUOTE

    The reference follows, but it is behind a paywall, as subscriptions are their only source of funds for the journal.

    http://www.morningstar.com.au/Stocks/YMW/20110303/Overview

  39. Maybe Rep. Upton can also introduce a bill to reverse the ban on incandescent light bulbs, since he was one of the original sponsors of the bill that created the ban. That might restore some of his credibility.

  40. ATTN AussieDan

    In BC, fossil fuels are not taxed if they are used as chemical reactant for various proceses, for example smelting metals where coke is used as a reductant. Fossil fuels used for preparing carbon electrodes for aluminium production are not taxed. Certain lubricating liquids and greases prepared from petroleum are also not taxed.

  41. The ban on CFL should be lifted because their use is restricted to dry (ie indoor) enviroments. For example, the CFL can not be used in a car port if it will be exposed to moist air. I wouldn’t want to use one in the bathroom where there is high humidity from showers.

    If you live really cold enviroments such as the northern great plains. Alaska, Siberia etc where the temps can drop to -30 deg or lower, CFL won’t start up.

    How would you like to buy an illuminated heat globe for small space heating applications like for Easy Bake ovens?

  42. Hugh Pepper says:
    March 10, 2011 at 12:18 pm

    I can’t imagine a worse decision than this, further evidence that part of the US Congress is firmly planted in the past and unable to foresee easily forecastable events.We deserve much better.
    Yes, except that the part firmly rooted in the past are the Dimocrats, who seem to want to bring us back to the stone age, energy-wise. With their Greenie goggles on (apparently, you have a pair, too), and kool-aid fogged brains, they cannot see the disasterous effects that forcing up energy costs will do. Yes, we do deserve much better than what they, and the power-mad EPA are trying to do. That is one reason Republicans were elected, and will continue to be.

Comments are closed.