Via press release from:
Senators to Vote on Whether to Cede Congressional Authority to the EPA
Washington, D.C. – Senators will soon consider a resolution to pare back an Environmental Protection Agency plan to regulate greenhouse gases – a plan that would raise energy costs.
On June 10, the U.S. Senate will consider a “resolution of disapproval” regarding a 2009 ruling made by the EPA in late 2009 claiming six greenhouse gases are a threat to public health. This makes these gases — carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride — subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act.
“The EPA’s endangerment finding endangers our economy and our liberty,” said Deneen Borelli, full-time fellow with the Project 21 black leadership network. “The EPA’s effort to regulate greenhouse gases will affect virtually every aspect of our economy and our lives. In expert opinion, this will result in higher energy costs and job losses while having — by their own admission — virtually no effect on cooling global climate.”
Senate Joint Resolution 26, introduced by Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), would use the Congressional Review Act to overturn the administrative ruling. This would allow elected representatives to deliberate and pass their own regulations as Congress sees fit.
“I don’t want an unelected bureaucrat imposing rules and regulations on businesses that are essentially a tax on energy and will be passed along to consumers — many of whom are just getting by as it is,” said Tom Borelli, director of the Free Enterprise Project of the National Center for Public Policy Research.
“Opposition to the cap-and-trade bill that was jammed through the House of Representatives is one of the key positions of the tea parties, and this endangerment finding is cap-and-trade by other means,” noted Deneen Borelli. “Americans are already skeptical enough of lawmakers these days. Watching them pass up an opportunity to do what they were sent to Washington for will restore no lost faith in the government.”
“This resolution is a major indicator of where our republic is headed. Senators will determine if they are going to cede their authority as an elected representative of the people to largely unaccountable bureaucrats,” added Tom Borelli. “While the White House is eager for the EPA to seize regulatory authority, rank-and-file Americans such as those found in the tea party movement are troubled and will be watching to see who will be for and who will be against this massive federal power grab.”
The National Center for Public Policy Research is a non-profit, free-market think-tank established in 1982 and funded primarily by the gifts of over 100,000 recent individual contributors. Less than one percent of funding is received from corporations.
“The National Center for Public Policy Research is a non-profit, free-market think-tank established in 1982 and funded primarily by the gifts of over 100,000 recent individual contributors. Less than one percent of funding is received from corporations.”
I suppose all those 100,000 individuals were given money by big oil to make the donations?
So, how many of our fine senators will vote for this resolution do you suppose? And even if it passes, does it have any power in law, as a resolution, or only give them an out at election time to say they voted for it? We must change the system that allows favors to be given by our elected representatives in return for money given to them by special interests. That is the only real solution to our problems. Until then we will continue to have the proverbial fox watching the henhouse. Unfortunately, with the news media 80% left wing only money can fight the disinformation being put out by the media. And there-in lies the big problem. Perhaps if all political speech protected by the 1st ammendment was required to be the written word, we would have a better chance as at least we would eliminate a great many of the left wing voters reading propaganda from the press as we know that many cannot read. Anyone have any other ideas on how to fix this problem?
See Sen. Mukorski’s Disapproval Resolution.
Mukorski’s press release:
Sen. Murkowski Offers Disapproval Resolution to Block EPA Endangerment of Economy Legislative Veto of Agency Rule will Take Worst Option for Reducing Emissions off Table
See: Murkowski Resolution Could Block EPA Power Grab
If there is a single act of government that should bring the Obama administration to its knees, it is the EPA’s power grab from elected officials.
Not only are the voters of America not considered smart enough to decide for themselves, but now their elected representatives are not either. Only the EPA has the right to decide.
So tell me, how do you know that your government is a fascist government?
From Wikipedia:
“Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the fascist state and the fascist movement.”
p.s. – I’m not even an American citizen and this is driving me nuts. Come on America, this is 10x more divisive and destructive than the healthcare debate. Voice your opinion to your representatives. Don’t let bureaucrats control you freedom.
Trevor, could you explain the following to me? I can’t figure why big oil likes cap and trade so much:
“As for the idea that cap and tax is the best way to punish BP and Big Oil, it’d be more convincing if Kerry-Lieberman hadn’t been written in concert with ConocoPhillips, Royal Dutch Shell and-bad-timing department-BP. “Ironically, we’ve been working very closely with some of these oil companies in the last months,” Mr. Kerry said in early May.
The Senator from Nantucket added that “they’ve acted in good faith and they’ve worked hard with us to try to find a way to get us to a solution that meets all of our needs.” Lobbyists for the three oil majors were regular visitors to Mr. Kerry’s closed-door negotiations”
The continued deference to unelected, agenda driven beauracrats amounts to taxation without representation.
People with short memory spans should be reminded that has caused a few problems in this country – but not for a while.
<sigh>
Oops. I just emitted some CO2 without a permit.
Senators to Vote on Whether to Cede Congressional Authority to the EPA
What idiot would do that?
It sure looks like the EPA power grab reeks of taxation and punitive taxation. The other way to remove power they grab is in court.
One day they will be asked to prove that CO2 is harmful.
Rahm Emanuel lives in an apartment funded by Big Oil Leaker BP. BP’s pr firm carries the tab.
Ed_B says:
June 7, 2010 at 11:15 am
Trevor, could you explain the following to me? I can’t figure why big oil likes cap and trade so much:
If I can speak for Trevor, my response would be fairly simple and straightforward. They have seen the direction this country has been heading for some time now. With that in mind, they are essentially getting on board to help lessen the damage as well as to maximize the amount of time they can look for loopholes and various means of passing on their new expenses to the customers. They are not so much in favor of Cap and Trade as they are in favor of damage control and finding new ways to increase profits.
Since when, non elected individuals, like those EPA, have the right to govern upon people? In any case they could only advice and recommend but never enforce.
Isn’t any gas molecule with 3 or more atoms a ‘greenhouse gas’ i.e. absorbs IR energy?
Cart blanche.
Can you imagine if J.”Death Trains” Hansen had decisive authority? deniers concentration and reeducation camps would flourish everywhere.
Ed_B it’s quite simple, get in on the ground floor or be froze out.
I was listening to one of our congressmen and there is an out for legislators on this. Can’t remember the details but legislators do have the power to overturn agency decisions without passing law. It was put in place to prevent just such a thing as the EPA from taking over almost everything in our lives.
Technically one of my Senators is Specter, although I clearly remember electing a Republican so this guy ain’t him. Since he lost the primary with Obama’s help (yup, that’s the wording I wanted) he’s got nothing to lose, and with one of the most noticeable notes of his political legacy being his recent vote for the Stimulus Boondoggle I doubt he’s going to be open to recommendations from us mere peon constituents to stop the EPA madness. Especially considering his best shot for a political-type job anywhere is an appointment by this current Administration as an apology for the primary. (You should have seen the reactions to the ads where Obama said how much he needs people like Specter in Washington. GW Bush went to late in his second term before his support could kill an election like that.)
Arlen Specter, US Ambassador to the Maldives. A temporary job to a temporary place… 😉
Ed_B says “I can’t figure why big oil likes cap and trade so much.”
Of course I do not speak from personal knowledge, but there are several possible reasons that come immediately to mind.
The most obvious is that perhaps the petroleum companies have bought enough politicians that the carbon credits they receive from the government will exceed their actual needs and they can sell the remainder for quick cash.
A second possibility is that the same group of controling owners and investors in the major oil companies are also owners and investors in the organizations which will be performing the cap and trade functions. Which is better, being a successful gambler or actually owning the casino?
Another possibility is that acceptance of cap and trade will be a major influence on the acceptance of carbon dioxide sequestration proposals. If companies prefer to seperate and sequester CO2 rather than pay fees in the cap and trade market, how will the CO2 be sequestered? Most likely it will be injected into old oil fields to pressurize the remaining petroleum and force it to the surface. The oil companies will be paid twice, first for sequestering the CO2 and then paid for selling all the oil that it squeezes to the surface.
There are, no doubt, a LOT of ways that a group of extraordinarily bright, wealthy, politically powerful and sociopathic individuals can game the system to their advantage. Use some creativity while you consider the subject!
A few Democrats will vote for the resolution (for use as an electoral fig leaf), and it may even pass. But those Democrats who vote for it will then refuse to actually do anything about it when the EPA thumbs their nose at the Senate resolution.
So nothing will happen unless the Republicans gain control of the Senate in November and threaten to ‘de-fund’ EPA activities they disagree with. But it looks like they will come up one or two seats short of control, so prepare to either hold your breath…. or apply for an emissions permit. Idiocy rules.
So with a stroke of a pen, democracy is given up.
If you Americans dont remove CO2 from that list, you might be forced to walk around with a gas-mask and a limestone container on your backs!
And on the container, you will read…..Made in China.
As much as those who voted for cap-and-trade would like to forget it, this will be a hot issue in November and some will lose their seats. This resolution is turning up the political burner. I know how I’m going to vote. Good science has no effect on most politicians but votes do.
To answer Jim G. – even if passed by the Senate, would this be binding? Of course not, this is just a resolution, it has no effect of law. Remember, to be law the same thing would have to be passed by the House AND signed by the President. That ain’t happening. So it’s just “aspirational” which is a fancy word for BS.
But it IS a nice political shot across the bow; anyone who votes against it is going to have to explain that in their political campaign this fall. Also, it lets the EPA know what might be on the radar if the GOP retakes the House this fall.
Still, trying to take over the regulatory function is not good policy, can’t keep that up. Better and much cleaner to simply cut EPA’s budget by 75% until they agree to get a little bit more inline with what Congress wants them to do. There is no doubt at all about the authority or ability of Congress to do that, if they want. And that’s the traditional tool of choice whenever any executive branch agency starts to think they can do whatever they want.
Enneagram – the executive branch IS the enforcement branch, that’s not in question. The problem is that they are both legislating AND enforcing today. They also make administrative judgments, which means they are usurping the tasks of all three branches of government. That’s just wrong, and they need to be pulled back sharply.
Another good question is why Kerry and Liberman would talk to big oil about the cap and trade bill. See my first comment on this page for the answer. Cap and trade is just another way for our fine elected reps to obtain money from special interests. You want this or that in the bill? Let me see how much you have donated to my campaign coffers?
Jason and all the others who are wondering why Big Oil would support Cap and Trade: You have no idea how much competition the independents and small companies provide here in the US, *especially* in the field of Natural Gas production.
Smaller companies don’t have the pricing power that the majors do – which means that cap and trade and all other regulatory schemes will hit them much harder than it will hit the majors, who will always be able to pass their costs along.
What this is, from the majors point of view, is a passthrough bill of little cost to them which will effectively destroy their most effective competition, and which will result in the consolodation of the industry into just a few national players and 5 -6 giant multinationals. Everyone smaller than that will either be wiped out or gobbled up. This is close to a grant of Absolute Power for them – talk about Too Big to Fail! And they could *never* bring this about in a normal competitive marketplace; this could ONLY happen with massive government coercion.
When you see that it really is a “Wipe out everyone except a handful of Really Big Companies Bill” then you will see what the stakes really are, and why they are playing along.
wws says:
I am not an american citizen, like John Q Public, but it is pityful to see such a big nation to fall down. Anyway that’s life. Never thought these changes of orbit around the barycenter could cause such a mess in the minds of individuals.:-)
In my humble opinion:
Cut funding at EPA 90% = jobs impact, initially -150,000, in six months, +600,000.
Do nothing and let this go through = jobs impact, initially -2 MM, after 6 months, -6 MM!
These guys are killing us along with themselves…..
Contact your Senators (email, fax, phone call, personal appointment, smoke signals, tangled quantum photon pairs, etc) and firmly direct them to vote “Yes” on the pending Murkowski Resolution of Disapproval (Senate Joint Resolution 26) to the 2009 EPA ruling claiming six greenhouse gases are a threat to public health. You have only 3 days to make your voices heard! I assure you, the opposition has already been lobbying them very hard so it is paramount that each of your speak clearly and directly now, before their vote. You can find your Senators contact information here:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Remind them that we elected THEM to control taxes and regulations that function as taxes on individuals and businesses, as the EPA ruling in question clearly does. Remind them that this is a fundamental part of their elected Senatorial job and it is not acceptable for them to delegate this to anyone else. Assure them that failure to vote “Yes” in compliance with their constituents clearly expressed directions for the Murkowski Senate Joint Resolution 26 will result in your immediate personal and financial support to whomever runs against them in the next US Senate election cycle. If you have previously supported them, make it clear in your message that this is a “make or break” issue for you.
One third of US Senate seats are up for election this November, a scant 4 and 1/2 months from now. They are the most worried about re-election and the most vulnerable, as a result. Hit them with multiple communications, expressing your clear directions by every means possible. Check out candidates that are running against them and mention them by name in your communications.
Do the same to your other Senator, as well, regardless of when they next stand for re-election. Lobby them all like your personal and economic freedoms depend on it. They do….
Another possible reason for “Big Oil” to participate in the CO2 charade: When oil prices go up, “Big Oil” always seems to make more profit.
Any such act would be completely unConstitutional, as the Congress has no such authority under said Constitution. That is, the Congress cannot legally surrender any of its powers to an inferior agency of government.
“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no right; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
– Norton v Shelby County, U.S. Supreme Court,[118 US 425,(1886).]
We can all see this for what it is–cap and trade will never pass legislation–so they rule by proxy, i.e., the EPA. What other proxy rules are coming down the pike? Does the FCC ring a bell?
It’s tyranny-creep.
@ wws
You beat me to it! You’re absolutely correct. Big oil is for “tax and trade” because it effectively eliminates competition. As far as cost goes, they’ll simply pass it on to the consumers. It is a “no lose” scenario for them. They know for at the very least the next few decades, the earth will still rely on oil for much of our energy needs. There’s simply no way around it. The only thing a “cap and trade” scheme would do, is it would punish Americans for engaging in commerce and industrialization. Not that we do some much of that today anyway. One day, we will come to learn that the service industry isn’t really an industry. It produces nothing tangible or anything of intrinsic value. Sigh.
pgosselin says:
June 7, 2010 at 12:52 pm
kind of a fluffy, sticky, loathsome alien, creeping along your limbs while eating your flesh….
Lisa Jackson, head of the EPA, is on record as saying that she thinks it would be best if the CO2 issue were handled by the legislature. A safe thing for any administrator to say about a controversial issue but surely those are wise words.
Unelected bureaucrats running your affairs, running rough-shod over the will of the people? Better watch out, American friends, you may end up like the EU, where 27 unelected EU commissioners pass laws which MUST – by treaty – be made law in member nation states.
And I would quit voting for the mainstream parties and vote for some independents instead. Someone who doesn’t suck up to the money. Put it this way: in the UK the ex-Business Secretary, Lord Mandelson (Labour), likes to hobnob with the Rothschildes; so does George Osborne, the current (Tory) Chancellor of the Exchequer. And yes, _Jim, I can cite references if required.
Get real folks. Just say no. Loudly.
Enneagram says:
June 7, 2010 at 11:31 am
Since when, non elected individuals, like those EPA, have the right to govern upon people? In any case they could only advice and recommend but never enforce.
Congress has been doing this for many years. They will write a “relatively” simple law leaving the particulars to a government bureaucrat agency to ‘promulgate’ regulations.
Those rules should then have to be voted on by Congress for them to take effect. They also should have a sunset clause wherein they must be reconsidered after a few years. This would have the effect of taming down the damage that zealous bureaucrats can do to us.
HankHenry says:{June 7, 2010 at 1:00 pm}
“Lisa Jackson, head of the EPA, is on record as saying that she thinks it would be best if the CO2 issue were handled by the legislature. A safe thing for any administrator to say about a controversial issue but surely those are wise words.”
She is also the person who said that all Americans have a right to a stable climate.
She is another ignorant fool who spouts garbage written by someone else.
It’s not just big oil at the cap and trade table–it’s a lot of utility companies too. As the chairman of Duke Power put it a couple years ago “If you are not at the table, you will be on the menu.” No one wants to be on the menu if they can avoid it, so it will be us small fry consumers who will have to fill it out.
Of course you can call your rep and whine or elect an independent who will, after one term in office, do the same things being done now, in most, not all cases. Until we take the money out of the election process this will go on and on and on. Still cannot figure how to make up for the lefties controlling the news media though, once you take the $$$ out of the election process. Would also be a good thing if the congress had to live by the same laws they pass on the rest of us.
And who did not already know that the taxes get passed along to the consumer? All taxes end up at the consumer’s door step. Unfortunately there is no national referendum or we could get a constitutional amendment passed. Right now the congress must pass it or the individual states. Might have a slim chance of the states doing it, if things get bad enough. And all you people talking about the constitution, forget about the supreme court helping out. 4 out of 9 of them do not even believe in the second amendment being an individual right and the other 5 don’t understand what “infringement” means based upon their last decision on same.
Ed_B says:
June 7, 2010 at 11:15 am
” could you explain the following to me? I can’t figure why big oil likes cap and trade so much:”
Big Oil isn’t impacted by cap and trade at all. The only oil burned to produce electricity in the US is waste oil.
Now if they were proposing a $2/gallon gasoline tax. Big Oil would be upset.
harrywr2,
An argument often invoked by Senator Kerry is that the current cap and trade bill is about energy security.
A 2$ a gallon gas tax won’t help with energy security. But a 10$/barrel tax on IMPORTED oil might have such an effect.
Problem, more domestic drilling !
If someone already posted this link, my apologies, I didn’t see it anywhere in a quick scan of responses.
You can send a canned OR personalized message to your Senators through this website:
http://freedomaction.org/index.php/take-action?url=http://capwiz.com/freedomaction/issues/alert/?alertid=15034281&utm_source=NOT+EVIL+ALL+CONTACTS&utm_campaign=7bd25b9320-Weekly+blast+3%2F3%2F2010&utm_medium=email
A year ago, this would have been a complete waste of time in my state, Mass, but at least there’s Scott Brown now, so who knows?
JimB
I really hope the US Senate will take away these regulating powers from EPA.
That would be the first real step in the ‘de-AGW-ing’ of the US society and the rest of the world. My goal would be an 80% reduction of AGW-nonsense this year.
I’m afraid this situation is for politicians like walking into quicksand and still trying to get to the other side of the pool anyhow, to reach a Fata Morgana. At some point, when the sun sets and the Fata Morgana is gone, they may have gone too far in already and won’t be able to get out of the mess anymore.
May reason win from fear!
WAKE UP ARKANSAS !!! Put your thinking caps back on !!!
Look what pond scum has raised the most money for Arkansas Lt. Governor Bill Halter’s Primary Challenge To Senator Blanche Lincoln…
Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Democracy for America, MoveOn.org, Daily Kos, AFL-CIO, and the Service Employees International Union, etc.
Now, I personally invested considerable effort to help make a more moderate democrat out of Blanche Lincoln and she has. Got her to back off several nutty liberal stances, such as gun and ammunition taxes and restrictions as well as to support Murkowski’s bill to overturn the EPA ruling on CO2 as a hazardous substance. If you think Ms. Lincoln is too liberal, just you watch Bill Halter go to work trying to force you to ‘do without’ for the sake of the planet!
It will make the republican ‘do without’ of full time jobs with benefits, good roads, bridges and good infrastructure, etc… for the sake of billionaires and their love of war look like childs play.
Jim G says:
June 7, 2010 at 11:11 am
we would eliminate a great many of the left wing voters reading propaganda from the press as we know that many cannot read. Anyone have any other ideas on how to fix this problem?
Better education?
Eliminate an equal number of right wing voters?
Article I Section 1 of the US constitution.
“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”
If the EPA is creating rules which carry the force of law without an act of congress it’s unconstitutional.
“this will result in higher energy costs and job losses while having — by their own admission — virtually no effect on cooling global climate.”
Understatement of the month there. The assumption being that “cooling global climate” has anything at all to do with what is going on. Even for the most rabid planet saver, surely the dry ice must be dissipating by now.
As to why Big Energy in general supports AGW Hysteria in general —
Florida P&L is one of the largest energy utilities in the country, having a large nuke installation and loads and loads of coal plants. They run about $2 billion in revenue annually. They have paid no taxes for three years now, because they are also the largest owner of Wind Phalanxes in the country.
Private enterprise is always smarter than the politicians and the bureaucrats; any fancy system dreamed up by the latter can and will be gamed by the former — just ask
EnronGE.To defund the EPA we must control the House of Representatives.
All appropriations MUST originate in the house. The senate has no power to fund anything. Cut off the money completely. If the senate and el presedente raise a fuss,
too bad they can’t generate the money out of thin air without an appropriation.
Should they try, they can be impeached.
Where in the Constitution does it say Congress can give away power … They have to do it by legislation, which fortunately can then be repealed.
” David Segesta says: June 7, 2010 at 3:52 pm
Article I Section 1 of the US constitution.
“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”
If the EPA is creating rules which carry the force of law without an act of congress it’s unconstitutional.”
David, regulatory agencies do this all the time. For example, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has hundreds of rules on acceptable methods to build and fly airplanes. Non-compliance includes criminal penalties. Another example: If you built a powerful unlicensed radio transmitter, the FCC will send the sheriff to shut you down and haul you off to jail. Endless examples…..
Mac the Knife, Enneagram, and others regarding EPA’s authority.
The U.S. has long held that Congress may delegate to various agencies the legislative powers that it holds itself. The Supreme Court has upheld various challenges to this, although there are limits. see this link for discussion and court cases:
http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-1/03-delegation-of-legislative-power.html
The basic idea is that Congress does not have the time, nor the man-power to adequately address all the myriad issues of a modern, large, and complex government. There are literally hundreds of Federal agencies that take their authority from this doctrine, and the EPA is but one of them. see this link for a listing of Agencies.
http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/index.shtml
One can read about the legislative authority which allows Congress to over-rule a regulation here: http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/bills/blcra.htm. Notably, this law was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President Clinton.
With regards to the regulatory state, the development of regulations is controlled by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act). This allows the administrative agency to implement statutes. There is a very large body of law which has defined the boundaries between the Executive branch (e.g. the Agency) and the legislative branch. The standard for overturning a regulation is “”arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.” In short, recent decisions in the Supreme Court, (most importantly Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) opinion by Stevens) have limited the courts power to overturn rules made by Agencies. In Chevron, the Court found that as long as the Agency’s interpretation of the statute was reasonable, it would not be overturned by the courts.
In the present case, where Congress asserts what the meaning of the law is, in this case stating that CO2 was not intended to be included, I would expect that to preclude any further action by the EPA, absent a grant of authority by Congress. Of course, Obama does have to sign the law however it does place all the Congress-critters on record (and Obama as if more is needed in this regard). It only needs to pass by a simple majority.
The law has been rarely used (once in fact) and has not been challenged in court. (see: http://www.law.upenn.edu/blogs/regblog/2010/02/can-the-congressional-review-act-block-climate-change-regulation.html)
Elections have consequences, those who oppose the current policies will have an opportunity to be heard in November.
The EPA clearly went into territory that needs to be covered by legislation with the endangerment finding. They were the emergency plan in case the cap n trade didn’t work, but also a toe in the water to see how far that they could go.
Why would big oil support groups and agenda items that seem to hurt them? As you guys said above, regulation eliminated competition and guarantees cartel exclusivity to the few large players.
The environmentalist end also creates perceived scarcity like peak oil propaganda, and putting large formations off limits via monuments and wildlife areas, driving prices up. They also get to offer a little guidance on the legislation to avoid the really painful stuff and build in some loopholes.
It makes a lot of sense for the big oil cos to be at the table, and it wouldn’t surprise me if they are secretly funding some green and peak oil groups. It is just a cost of doing business while maintaining a monopoly.
“While the White House is eager for the EPA to seize regulatory authority, rank-and-file Americans such as those found in the tea party movement are troubled and will be watching to see who will be for and who will be against this massive federal power grab.”
Oh yes we will. And many senators are going to be looking for work.
The reduction on oil is too tiny to improve energy security – the US could just burn more coal and gas for that. It is pretty much guaranteed to increase the demand for rare earth metals – which are used in weapon systems and China have a pretty good stranglehold on. Instead of making the US secure this will make them dependant on the Middle east AND China. The people pushing this stuff are too ideological to have a level-headed understanding of the implications. I don’t get those knocking american democracy – a year or so after pushing this stuff america is pushing back. The EU has been forcing this stuff through for over a decade with no government representatives making as much as a whimper. It is pretty obvious which side of the atlantic has the healthier democracy.
RayB says:
June 7, 2010 at 11:00 pm
The EPA clearly went into territory that needs to be covered by legislation with the endangerment finding. They were the emergency plan in case the cap n trade didn’t work, but also a toe in the water to see how far that they could go.
[–snip–]
It makes a lot of sense for the big oil cos to be at the table, and it wouldn’t surprise me if they are secretly funding some green and peak oil groups. It is just a cost of doing business while maintaining a monopoly.
You’ve put your finger on the magic button: Multinational/Transnational oil has indeed been behind a lot of the propaganda since almost from the beginning.
As you point out above: The whole theme was/is to create an artifice, an illusion of dwindling oil when in fact it has been known since at least the 1970’s (possibly even earlier) that mineral crude is in fact part of a constant geological process.
The said oil companies secretly met with their supposed enemies, the greens, and concocted the scheme which effectively kept the number of refineries static. Any student of history can clearly see that when the oil companies pretended to attempt to get another one online, the greens threw a convenient hissy fit.
The oil companies made only the feeblest attempt to counter the greens and then shut up. The charade was bought, hook, line, and sinker by the rest of world.
Now that that cat is out of the bag, the only way to continue milking the rest of us is to create yet another artifice and that’s the ‘carbon’ scheme.
The whole thought there is to create artificial shortages by dint of reduced production, which in turn will raise the prices of the commodity, and that’s not even talking about the taxes which will be levied.
This isn’t to say that the ground-level greens know what’s going on. Rather, what’s happened in the past and currently is that the top leadership uses the following as useful idiots: They are kept effectively ignorant of the truth.
Anyone who knows anything about religion knows that new converts are the most ardent and vociferous followers, and are loath to question anything they’ve been taught. For them, pablum is the order of the day. As much is evidenced by their writings and threats to anyone who questions their ideology.
Bit of devil’s advocacy here;
Most law bodies are divided into the Executive the Legislature and the Judiciary. The worry is at the overlap of responsibilities, in this case the EPA [executive] taking over law making from the legislature. But is this really the case? Very often the legislature delegate authority to the executive to make or change laws. In the UK for instance most of our law is delegated. So something like the Road Traffic Act says very little of use but details of speeds, vehicle design etc., are in the delegated regulations. In some instances these regulations contain schedules e.g. of substances, levels or amounts, which can be added to or altered by the executive. Could this be the case here? The EPA isn’t making a law, it’s just doing things legally within the delegated framework it’s been given. For instance if some science papers had said chromium was more dangerous that previously though would we amazed if OSHA [HSE in UK] changed the levels of exposure in some worker protection code. that wouldn’t go back to Senate? Same thing with EPA really except the implications of CO2 reductions are a little more taxing.
Any US lawyers out there?
cheers David
Ed_B says:
June 7, 2010 at 11:15 am
Trevor, could you explain the following to me? I can’t figure why big oil likes cap and trade so much:
“As for the idea that cap and tax is the best way to punish BP and Big Oil, it’d be more convincing if Kerry-Lieberman hadn’t been written in concert with ConocoPhillips, Royal Dutch Shell and-bad-timing department-BP. “Ironically, we’ve been working very closely with some of these oil companies in the last months,” Mr. Kerry said in early May.
The Senator from Nantucket added that “they’ve acted in good faith and they’ve worked hard with us to try to find a way to get us to a solution that meets all of our needs.” Lobbyists for the three oil majors were regular visitors to Mr. Kerry’s closed-door negotiations”
________________________________________________________________________
Look back to the first UN Earth Summit where Maurice Strong paid the way for Greenpeace and started the AGW ball rolling. Strong is a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation who helps fund Greenpeace and WWF. Strong is a senior advisor to the World Bank and started his career in oil with the Rockefeller’s Saudi Arabian oil company in the 1950’s.
I suggest you look into the big oil, World Bank, Maurice Strong, and David Rockefeller connections. CAGW is a money/power grabbing move and nothing more.
text
“The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions….”
As I said it is all about power and control. Check out the IMF/World Bank SAPs
Enneagram says:
June 7, 2010 at 11:31 am
Since when, non elected individuals, like those EPA, have the right to govern upon people? In any case they could only advice and recommend but never enforce.
________________________________________________________________________
You have not had any run ins with the USDA have you? The idea is to grab the power, then enforce it on the little guy who does not have the money or power to defend himself.
Checkout John Munsell’s story
What law? The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is creating a new regulatory system for meat and poultry safety… HACCP is widely recognized by scientific authorities and international organizations..
Where it actually came from: The harmonization of laws, regulations and standards between and among trading partners requires intense, complex, time-consuming negotiations by CFSAN officials…. Failure to reach a consistent, harmonized set of laws, regulations and standards within the freetrade agreements and the World Trade Organization Agreements can result in considerable economic repercussions.
Our laws all over the world are now written by unelected international organizations and then rubber stamped by bought and paid for politicians.
Monday, 30 April 2007: “In a sweeping move that has garnered surprisingly little attention this week the United States and the European Union have signed up to a new transatlantic economic partnership that will see regulatory standards “harmonized” and will lay the basis for a merging of the US and EU into one single market, a huge step on the path to a new globalized world order.” The BBC reported from the Summit in Washington on Monday: http://stopspp.com/stopspp/?p=122
wws says:
June 7, 2010 at 12:14 pm
“Jason and all the others who are wondering why Big Oil would support Cap and Trade: You have no idea how much competition the independents and small companies provide here in the US….
When you see that it really is a “Wipe out everyone except a handful of Really Big Companies Bill” then you will see what the stakes really are, and why they are playing along.”
__________________________________________________________________________
Yes, Yes, that is exactly it. It is identical to what the WTO and HACCP regs did to the small meat packers. In ten years it wiped them completely off the board. We are now down to four or five internationals and a few in-state only meat packers. The next battle is the farmers themselves. We have been fighting since 2005 (food safety bill) and National Animal Identification System and we are loosing.
– January 2005: WTO/UN Guide to Good Farming Practices: This draft guide to good farming practices for animal production food safety was taken from the Report of the Meeting of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission (Paris, 17-28 January 2005) http://www.oie.int/boutique/extrait/25berlingueri823836_0.pdf?PHPSESSID=64969a28688594daf57a7263f42fb1ce
Don’t forget the Corporate/Government Revolving Door: http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Revolving-Door.htm
“Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people; control money and you control the world.” ~ Henry Kissinger 1970
Government by regulation. Just like in Europe. This reminds me of the movie The Best Little Horehouse in Texas where Charles Durning, the Texas Governor demonstrates how to avoid blame by singing and dancing the Sidestep.
In baseball it’s Three Strikes and you’re out!
In politics, the rule should be Two Strikes and you’re out!
No one, I say again, NO ONE should be elected to the same job more than twice.
We don’t need an amendment to the Constitution. It’s very, very simple! Just DON’T Vote for anyone for more than two terms in the same position.
City Council or School Board or Mayor or etc. – TWO TERMS
County Commissioner or Sherif or etc. – TWO TERMS
State Rep or Senator or Sec of State or Governor, etc. – TWO TERMS
US House Rep or Senator or President, etc. – TWO TERMS
It’s an UP or OUT System, do well and move UP or you’re back on the street with the rest of us beggars.
PS: First we clean up Congress, then we do away with the EPA ! What’s a few more unemployed these days?
It’s amazing how many commentors on this blog (not to mention the author of that press release) don’t understand how the U.S. government works.
David Segesta spoke for many when he said, “If the EPA is creating rules which carry the force of law without an act of congress it’s unconstitutional.”
That act of congress is called the Clean Air Act. Established by a Republican president (Nixon) and substantially strengthened by another Republican president (Bush), the CAA authorizes and requires the EPA to regulate air pollution.
Henry chance says, “The other way to remove power they grab is in court.”
This has already been decided in court. Far from being a power grab, in 2003, EPA decided not to regulate greenhouse gases, until they were required to do so by the Supreme Court in 2007.
Let me sum up: EPA is regulating greenhouse gases because it is required to do so by Congress and the Supreme Court.
tallbloke says:
June 7, 2010 at 3:44 pm
Jim G says:
June 7, 2010 at 11:11 am
we would eliminate a great many of the left wing voters reading propaganda from the press as we know that many cannot read. Anyone have any other ideas on how to fix this problem?
Better education?
Eliminate an equal number of right wing voters?
________________________________________________________________________
How about make the right wing AND the left wing realize this is a “you and he fight” type of situation while the multi-billionaires walk off with more of the poor and middle class wealth and increase their power. Every bill passed into law, every increase in the US bureaucracy put more money into the bankers pockets.
Grace Commission Report January 12, 1984
“…..If fundamental changes are not made in Federal spending, as compared with the fiscal 1983 deficit of $195 billion, a deficit of over ten times that amount, $2 trillion, is projected for the year 2000, only 17 years from now. In that year, the Federal debt would be $13.0 trillion ($160,000 per current taxpayer) and the interest alone on the debt would be $1.5 trillion per year ($18,500 per year per current taxpayer)….
…100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government.“
And do not let the rhetoric fool you, The Federal Reserve Is A PRIVATELY OWNED Corporation Although it is set up as a cross between a Corporation and a federal agency as a sop to the public, Congress lost all control several decades ago.
A must read for everyone is “A Primer on Money”, printed for the House Banking and. Currency Committee, 1964, 88th Congress, 2nd Session This pamphlet outlines exactly how control of the banking industry was wrest away from the US government.
RayB says:
June 7, 2010 at 11:00 pm
…..It makes a lot of sense for the big oil cos to be at the table, and it wouldn’t surprise me if they are secretly funding some green and peak oil groups. It is just a cost of doing business while maintaining a monopoly.
_________________________________________________________________________
David Rockefeller and Maurice Strong, two big guns in oil and banking, have been the prime movers in CAGW from the start (UN first earth summit – 1972) The Rockefeller Foundations have been funding GreenPeace and WWF with Standard Oil money for years!
Rockefeller and Strong are members of the Club of Rome:
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill … All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.” — in The First Global Revolution, pp.104-105 by Alexander King, founder of the Club of Rome and Bertrand Schneider, secretary of the Club of Rome
Knowing the background behind CAGW is as important as knowing the science.
Larry says:
June 8, 2010 at 2:50 am
“…. The people pushing this stuff are too ideological to have a level-headed understanding of the implications….”
__________________________________________________________________
Larry, Al Gore’s good buddy Maurice Strong, father of Global Warming is sitting in Beijing China where he is welcomed with open arms. Of course they know where this is going. The complete destruction of the USA and Europe as world powers and that is exactly what they want.
“You Americans are so gullible! We don’t have to invade you! We will destroy you from within without firing a shot! We will bury you by the billions! We spoon feed you socialism until your Communists and don’t even know it! We assist your elected leaders in giving you small doses of Socialism until you suddenly awake to find you have Communism. the day will come when your grandchildren will live under communism!” 1956 –Nikita Kruschev to the USA at the UN
“What unites the many different forms of Socialism.. is the conception that socialism (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) must be handed down to the grateful masses in one form or another, by a ruling elite which is not subject to their control…” http://search.marxists.org/archive/draper/1966/twosouls/0-2souls.htm
The ‘Innocents’ Clubs’: http://www.heretical.com/miscella/munzen.html
“…During the 1920’s and most of the 1930’s Münzenberg played a leading role in the Comintern, Lenin’s front for world-wide co-ordination of the left under Russian control. Under Münzenberg’s direction, hundreds of groups, committees and publications cynically used and manipulated the devout radicals of the West….Most of this army of workers in what Münzenberg called ‘Innocents’ Clubs’ had no idea they were working for Stalin. They were led to believe that they were advancing the cause of a sort of socialist humanism. The descendents of the ‘Innocents’ Clubs’ are still hard at work in our universities and colleges. Every year a new cohort of impressionable students join groups like the Anti-Nazi League believing them to be benign opponents of oppression…”
“For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as “internationalists” and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” – Pg. 405 of David Rockefeller’s Autobiography, 2002
Unfortunately it is not some nutters “Conspiracy Theory” it is very very real. I just hope we are not too late to stop it. Because all those activists are going to find out the same thing the peasants found out after the Soviet Union was formed…. The elite do not see the “serfs” as human and consider them completely expendable.
Check out Who gave the USA the Federal Reserve, while his brother funded the bolshevik revolution. I will give you a hint google Warburg
Don’t confuse conservative with republican or “right wing”. Many of the GOP have signed on to the “bribe the people with their own money” program. The biggest mistake made by many conservatives is to belive that free enterprise without INTELLIGENT regulation will not revert to robber barons and child labor. Just look at the financial industry situation today. It was, indeed, started by the Community Reinvestment act but the big financials jumped on the band wagon once the government set it up so they could sell their bad loans. Everyone in the industry and in government had their hands in each others’ pockets and the money came from the vast unwashed masses. Again, the only solution is to take the money out of the system. We could start by not allowing the elected officials to take their campaign funds home with them when they leave or get thrown out.
Anonymous Howard says:
June 8, 2010 at 6:52 am
“It’s amazing how many commentors on this blog (not to mention the author of that press release) don’t understand how the U.S. government works.
David Segesta spoke for many when he said, “If the EPA is creating rules which carry the force of law without an act of congress it’s unconstitutional.”
That act of congress is called the Clean Air Act. Established by a Republican president (Nixon) and substantially strengthened by another Republican president (Bush), the CAA authorizes and requires the EPA to regulate air pollution.
Henry chance says, “The other way to remove power they grab is in court.”
This has already been decided in court. Far from being a power grab, in 2003, EPA decided not to regulate greenhouse gases, until they were required to do so by the Supreme Court in 2007.
Let me sum up: EPA is regulating greenhouse gases because it is required to do so by Congress and the Supreme Court.”
You are correct. The only conceivable method to successfully thwart the EPA’s “cap and trade by other means” would be an amendment to the authorizing legislation. And, in reality, what would likely be required is complete “repeal and replace” of virtually the entire federal code of environmental law. Given the ongoing debacle in the Gulf, the flood of demagoguery that would accompany the mere suggestion of even the most limited of these options means that even if we could replace, with a magical snap of our fingers, the entire elected class across all levels of government with a coterie of strict constitutionalists and hardcore libertarians, it would still be virtually impossible to generate the political will to do what is required. We are so screwed.
BTW, I came across this rather compelling distillation of the Impediment of the United States
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_5B0Uauh-3Pc/TApgEE-IA2I/AAAAAAAABLY/aVt_Ri4-cQM/s1600/PostTurtle.jpg
For those who’ve never lived in places where turtles are a regular feature of the environment and may have trouble with the allusion, a “post turtle” is usually a result of an act of juvenile indifferent cruelty, not some reptilian extension of PNS.
I believe that the EPA claimed that regulating GHGs was not in their jurisdiction under the meaning of their enabling legislation. The SC said it was (by 5-4). But that didn’t require the EPA to regulate them. It only required the EPA to determine whether or not GHGs were dangerous, and if so, at what level. The EPA could (and would, under Bush) have decided that they weren’t dangerous.
Gail Combs says:
Better education?
Eliminate an equal number of right wing voters?
By the way, I graduated from Case Institute of Technology when it was ranked #2 in engineering schools in the US, required top grades and board scores to even enter and still more than half of those with whom I entered did not graduate. After it was made a “better education” situation by the liberal ideology by combining it with Western Reserve College, the school of science and engineering has never recovered and was ranked 67th the last time I saw such a ranking. Of course, just like with science today, one must consider the new ranking criteria which include all sorts of liberal nonsense. But the real truth is that now that anyone can get in and anyone can graduate the rigorous education it once offered is gone and whatever its rank it is no longer considered a test of intelligence and/or hard work to obtain a degree from that institution. Unfortunately, the left wing has control of most schools of higher education and has dumbed them down considerably so that anyone can now obtain a degree in any subject from BS to PHD to MD without being very intelligent or working very hard. All it takes is time and money.
Unless the House (over Pelosi’s dead body) takes up the Senate resolution and also passes it, the whole thing is just political theater.
Anonymous Howard says:
June 8, 2010 at 6:52 am
It’s amazing how many commentors on this blog (not to mention the author of that press release) don’t understand how the U.S. government works.
I shall proceed to demonstrate that it is all the more yourself whom is the one with the misunderstanding.
David Segesta spoke for many when he said, “If the EPA is creating rules which carry the force of law without an act of congress it’s unconstitutional.”[–snip–]
If the extent of the law –as it is– does NOT allow the EPA to randomly and callously declare contention for which there is no science to support it, then the act of the agency is indeed beyond the pale of the unconstitutional.
Henry chance says, “The other way to remove power they grab is in court.”
This has already been decided in court. Far from being a power grab, in 2003, EPA decided not to regulate greenhouse gases, until they were required to do so by the Supreme Court in 2007.
You are MOST incorrect! The court did NOT require anything. Rather, what it did rule was that the agency was well within its bounds to regulate what it had decided was a ‘pollutant.’
Let me sum up: EPA is regulating greenhouse gases because it is required to do so by Congress and the Supreme Court.
Let’s REALLY sum up: You know less about the subject than you pretend.
Jim G says:
June 8, 2010 at 8:36 am
Don’t confuse conservative with republican or “right wing”. Many of the GOP have signed on to the “bribe the people with their own money” program. The biggest mistake made by many conservatives is to belive that free enterprise without INTELLIGENT regulation will not revert to robber barons and child labor. Just look at the financial industry situation today. It was, indeed, started by the Community Reinvestment act but the big financials jumped on the band wagon once the government set it up so they could sell their bad loans. Everyone in the industry and in government had their hands in each others’ pockets and the money came from the vast unwashed masses. Again, the only solution is to take the money out of the system. We could start by not allowing the elected officials to take their campaign funds home with them when they leave or get thrown out.
I’ve a better set of ideas:
[1] Disallow –by law– any involvement in either the making of a law, or the voting on whatever issue for which funds were accepted by an interest directly affected by the legislation.
[2] Lacking [1] above, then a constitutional amendment which removes all power from the Congress to either raise or spend monies without a direct vote of the people, requiring BOTH an 80% show AND VOTE by all registered voters. If 80% show, but only 79% vote in the affirmative, the measure fails.
[3] All taxes shall be directly billed to the people themselves instead of being automatically deducted from salaries. When everyone gets that bill in the mail, hell and high water are surely to happen!
My2Cents says:
June 8, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Unless the House (over Pelosi’s dead body) takes up the Senate resolution and also passes it, the whole thing is just political theater.
WHAT?!?! Do you mean to say that she’s not already dead? Could’ve fooled me!!
Must be all that botox …
@rogerkni: “[The Supreme Court] only required the EPA to determine whether or not GHGs were dangerous, and if so, at what level.”
Correct. I was simplifying (oversimplifying?). I would contend that the endangerment finding was inevitable (even under Bush or another Republican president), but that would be speculation and probably not worth arguing over. Thanks for the clarification.
June 10, 11:30 EDT 6 hours of debate begins on the Disapproval Resolution
On Cspan 2
Mukorwski’s Disapproval Resolution failed 47 to 53.
Now every small business and farm will expect to pay thousands of dollars to obtain an EPA permit to expand/change its operations.
The critical issue before us is how to obtain alternative fuels to keep our economies going, not reducing global temperature by a fraction of a degree at a very high cost.
Not if he’d appointed the skeptical EPA economist who wrote the suppressed paper appealing for a reassessment to head the EPA.
David Hagen says:
June 10, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Mukorwski’s Disapproval Resolution failed 47 to 53.
Now every small business and farm will expect to pay thousands of dollars to obtain an EPA permit to expand/change its operations.
The critical issue before us is how to obtain alternative fuels to keep our economies going, not reducing global temperature by a fraction of a degree at a very high cost.
Four things:
[1] Remember in November. REALLY REMEMBER!
[2] Small businesses aren’t important to the ones in office, if only that those ‘representatives’ are being paid big bucks by the multinationals/transnationals to vote a certain way. We the people aren’t important. As the MSM talking head says: Just shut up and bend over! Got that?
[3] And no, the EPA won’t shed one bloody tear over the results of its acts, because bureaucrats get paid regardless of the economic picture.
[4] Government operates on taxation. No taxes? No operation. Take it from there.
Roger Knights says:
June 10, 2010 at 5:14 pm
Well, as long as we’re in the realm of desperate hypotheticals, I suppose the president could appoint a trained pigeon to head the EPA and we’d still be waiting on a decision. (Editor: Insert joke about hunt-and-peck typing here. Thanks.)
Roger Knights says:
June 10, 2010 at 5:14 pm
[–snip–]Well, as long as we’re in the realm of desperate hypotheticals, I suppose the president could appoint a trained pigeon to head the EPA and we’d still be waiting on a decision. (Editor: Insert joke about hunt-and-peck typing here. Thanks.)
Why do I suddenly get the feeling that we’re all statues in a park somewhere, about to be covered with droppings?
It’s likely that a Republican president would have appointed, or tried to appoint, a CAGW skeptic to head the EPA. And it’s likely that he’d have overruled any attempt by the EPA to regulate CO2. Your claim that “the endangerment finding was inevitable” is far-fetched.
PS: It’s virtually certain that the EPA, under a Republican president, would not have taken the IPCC reports as gospel, and would have heeded their skeptical economist’s call for a reexamination of the evidence. If the EPA had then held hearings and cross-examined witnesses, the alarmist case mightn’t have seemed persuasive enough to issue an endangerment finding.
Or, if it did, at least the EPA might not have decided to act against CO2 at the present time, since unilateral action would be futile and self-destructive.