Excerpts from: EPA left to pick up climate change where Congress dropped the debate By David A. Fahrenthold and Juliet Eilperin
The Obama administration told Congress to find a way to regulate greenhouse gases — or else.
Last month, Congress refused: Democratic leaders in the Senate declined to take up climate legislation before their August break, which means it looks effectively dead for this session.
Now the White House is stuck with “or else.”
The Environmental Protection Agency will soon begin regulating greenhouse gases factory by factory, power plant by power plant. That could be unwieldy, expensive and unpopular — even President Obama has said it’s not his preferred solution.
But for now, it’s his only option.
The next few months could bring a climax to the long-running debate over how to combat climate change, with the EPA trying to implement its rules and industry groups and opponents in Congress seeking to block it with lawsuits or legislation.
The administration will cite a mandate from the Supreme Court, which ruled in 2007 that greenhouse gases could be regulated like other air pollutants. But opponents will say it has chosen an approach that stretches the law and could impose serious economic costs.
The result of their fight could be the first limits on greenhouse gases from American smokestacks — or a significant defeat for the White House and environmental groups.
The administration “wanted to be able to hold out the threat of clean-air regulation [by the EPA], as a way to . . . try to get people to the table,” said Jeffrey R. Holmstead, an EPA official under the Bush administration, who now works for the law firm Bracewell & Giuliani. “They’re now faced with the kind of unenviable task of trying to make it work.”
=======================
Read complete WaP article: EPA left to pick up climate change where Congress dropped the debate
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Pamela Gray says:
August 4, 2010 at 4:08 pm
“I was thinking about cow dung dust. Makes great rose tea. All you have to do is have a dirt manure pile and crowd the cows in. Let em poop for awhile then kick em back out to green pastures. Let the stuff dry and rake it into a fairly fine consistency. Package it up and when needed, add to water. Rose tea. Pour near the roots and you will have fabulous roses. I could send some to DC in little homemade tea bags if you think it would help. Since the Dems are full of s**t, my rose tea oughta be just their cup of tea.”
HAHAHA, that’s a beautiful idea!!! Be sure to send some extra to the EPA so they can share the gift with all in the office!!!
The dictum is “you’d better do it, Congress, or we’ll get the EPA do it”. An interesting mindset is behind this threat. Congress created the EPA– would they have the guts to put their child back in its place? Probably not; and then there’s Obama’s veto power.
I should have added that the Washington Post has enthusiastically supported using the threat of clumsy EPA regulation to dragoon the Congress into doing the “right” thing (or maybe it’s the left thing).
Somehow, I don’t read the Supreme Court “allowing” CO2 regulation as a “mandate,” but I guess I’m just more familiar with the English language than the average WaPo employee.
.
Stephen Wilde says: August 4, 2010 at 1:48 pm
President Obama is very like our former Prime Minister Blair.
Each knows what we want to hear so they say it but it’s not backed up by any real worldly wisdom or any sound political philosophy.
Not at all like Blair. I’ve watched Prime Minister’s Question Time on London layovers. Obama would be reduced to tears by grillings such as Blair handled. Blair can think on his feet, while Obama is a pathetic embarrassment if he doesn’t have a teleprompter to read from. Your Parliament, even those on his side, would not let Obama get away with blaming George Bush for everything.
.
Alan Simpson not from Friends of the Earth says: August 4, 2010 at 3:48 pm
OK, this is a political comment, ( I am not an American ), but hasn’t the President just shouldered all of the blame for any, ( er, read that as the destruction of the American economy ), adverse effects upon himself?
This President does not shoulder blame for anything. He had a veto-proof Congress, yet he blamed the Republicans for blocking his agenda. The American press lets him get away with it. Our recession would be over by now had anyone else been running the government, but he continues to blame George W. Bush. I can’t recall Dubya ever using the word “inherited,” but it’s every other word the Bamster reads off the teleprompter. No, Obama doesn’t shoulder blame. He has no shoulders. <rant>
Gosh, I feel better now.
Perhaps the power companies should try an experiment – shut down all fossil fuel plants for a week and check how the temperature changes!
Eric says:
August 4, 2010 at 12:15 pm
As an Australian could some of the USA posters here please enlighten me as to what “Sarah Palin” types are and what is meant to be wrong with them?
Those of us lucky enough to be married to tough, smart, competent, good looking women who have common sense in spades might like to know.
From the other side of the ‘pond’ and perhaps the moon….
“A dark ideology is driving those who deny climate change”
“People who claim that climate science is a conspiracy or the work of charlatans are talking rubbish”
Robin Mckie
The Observer, Sunday 1 August 2010
This appears to be one more article purporting that opposition to the AGW theory is a machination of the rich and powerful at the expense of the ‘little guy’ who will suffer the dire, runaway consequences of a 0.6 degree average temperature increase in the last 100 years.
I would not be supprised if were the attitude of some of the new staffers at the EPA.
stevengoddard says:
August 4, 2010 at 4:50 pm
“The Federal Government appears determined to thwart the will of the citizenry. During the past two weeks we saw Obama and a federal judge usurp the will of the people of Arizona, and it happened again today in California.”
Yes, apparently the term representative democracy doesn’t register with those people. This, too, has its limits. Hopefully, November will slap them with some reality.
Mike Borgelt,
What was done to Sarah Palin was the classic Saul Alinsky tactic of personalizing the opposition and making the person the issue, rather than what the person stands for.
The alarmist crowd did the same thing to Lord Monckton a while back. Not one of them was able to correct his science, so they launched a non-stop ad hominem attack.
Henry chance:
GHG’s
NOX,COX,SOX, CH4 and CFC.
————–
For a second there I thought you were about to recite a Variety Headline (Hix nix pix…)
Mike McMillan says:
August 4, 2010 at 5:03 pm
Gosh, I feel better now.
======================================
Me too!
“The administration will cite a mandate from the Supreme Court, which ruled in 2007 that greenhouse gases could be regulated like other air pollutants.”
Emphasis on the word “could”. SCOTUS did not “Mandate” regulation. The next president (hopefully the new House Speaker after Obama and what’s his name get impeached) can clean up the EPA and NASA/GISS.
Smokey says:
August 4, 2010 at 5:31 pm
Mike Borgelt,
“What was done to Sarah Palin was the classic Saul Alinsky tactic of personalizing the opposition and making the person the issue, rather than what the person stands for.
The alarmist crowd did the same thing to Lord Monckton a while back. Not one of them was able to correct his science, so they launched a non-stop ad hominem attack.”
And they’ll continue to do it to all those they fear.
Let’s hear it for the “or else!”
There’s nothing quite as persuasive as a bureaucrat using the point of a gun as his final element in a syllogism.
Yes, the blackmail didn’t work. Now Team Obama will either have to further retard economic activity–and bloat consumers’ energy bills–or go quietly into the night. They either hack off consumers and more of the unemployed or the fringe left of their base. I know which side has more votes…
Mike Borgelt says:
August 4, 2010 at 5:18 pm
Eric says:
August 4, 2010 at 12:15 pm
As an Australian could some of the USA posters here please enlighten me as to what “Sarah Palin” types are and what is meant to be wrong with them?
Those of us lucky enough to be married to tough, smart, competent, good looking women who have common sense in spades might like to know.
____________________________________________________________
You have just given a lot of the reasons but they apply to Hilary Clinton too. The primary reason is because Palin is “very conservative” and religious therefore the liberals really hate her yet JF Kennedy was a Catholic so go figure.
Sarah Palin is:
Anti-abortion
pro school prayer
pro gun
pro hunting
favors the death penalty
opposes gay marriage, but as Governor was tough on gay-lesbian discrimination
very pro-ethics in government
As mayor she kept her campaign promises by reducing her own salary along with property taxes.
fiscal conservative
http://usconservatives.about.com/od/sarahpalin/p/SarahPalin.htm
She seem to be that oxymoron, an honest politician.
Mike Borgelt says:
August 4, 2010 at 5:18 pm
As an Australian could some of the USA posters here please enlighten me as to what “Sarah Palin” types are and what is meant to be wrong with them?
=========================================================
Mike just keep in mind, the people that bash Sarah Palin, actually voted for Obama.
What we need now is a huge scandal involving the EPA… you know, and EPAgate kind of thing.
Greenhouse gases are not pollution. To say they are is political propaganda.
From the Washington Post article:
What the article does not mention is that there are many scientists (not to mention innumerable informed laymen) who do not agree that CO2 is a ‘pollutant’, nor any kind of hazard whatsoever. They do not agree that there is any danger that CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels will affect global temperatures at all, and certainly not adversely.
But that, of course, is par for the course at the Washington Post and other vanishingly ‘mainstream’ publications. They insist on parroting the official line that there is a problem with ‘greenhouse gases’. Why? Because that is what they are told by the ruling class, and theirs is not to question authority. And so it never occurs to them that the ostensible concern with ‘climate change’ is really just an excuse for the rulers to exercise more and more control over the lives of the American people.
/Mr Lynn
jorgekafkazar says:
August 4, 2010 at 3:00 pm
“Eric says: “I voted for Obama…A brilliant guy who has nary a clue.”
If he’s so brilliant, how come Harvard was forced to seal his transcript?”
I didn’t know that his transcript was sealed. Hmmmmmm…… now you’ve done gone and got my curiosity up.
The transcripts of Bush and Gore were a bit of an item during their campaigns. IIRC, it turned out that Bush won with a ‘C’ average to Gore’s ‘C-‘ average. I could be wrong, but anyhow it was just the usual campaign silliness of “our candidate is smarter than yours.” It turns out they were both found to be unqualified for rocket science, rock science, or even rock-candy making.
I don’t understand this – the US is the most powerful country in the world and seems determined to follow the example set by the British Empire – i.e. that decline is inevitable once the loonies and lefties get control of critical areas of government policy.
This nonsense from the EPA is a symptom of decline and perhaps a timely reminder of the old time-proven adage:
“Those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.”
it looks like Jeff Sprecher of ICE which bought the UK-listed Climate Exchange (CLE) is getting the message:
4 Aug: UK Financial Times: US carbon emissions trading in doubt
By Hal Weitzman in Chicago
The future of carbon emissions trading in the US is in doubt because of the lack of cap-and-trade legislation, Jeff Sprecher, chief executive of Intercontinental Exchange , said on Wednesday…
Although CCX’s (Chicago Climate Exchange) market is voluntary, since launching in 2003 it has attracted large US companies such as Ford, DuPont, Bank of America, Cargill, Monsanto, Honeywell, IBM, Motorola and Intel…
In spite of luring big companies and possessing significant political clout, the receding prospect of the US passing cap-and-trade legislation has drawn into question the whole idea of carbon trading as a viable business…
In the absence of new legislation, the EPA could implement a carbon regime based on the Clean Air Act that would set emissions limits but may not allow for carbon trading – raising the prospect of “cap, but not trade”, he (Jeff Sprecher, chief executive of Intercontinental Exchange) said…
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/55232080-9fe8-11df-8cc5-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=rss
@ur momisugly pat says:
August 4, 2010 at 8:29 pm:
In the absence of new legislation, the EPA could implement a carbon regime based on the Clean Air Act that would set emissions limits but may not allow for carbon trading – raising the prospect of “cap, but not trade”, he (Jeff Sprecher, chief executive of Intercontinental Exchange) said…
————
As a consultant who worked throughout Europe and Latin America on Kyoto Clean Development Projects, I can tell you that the European model for carbon trading was rife with incompetence, dishonesty and downright thievery! No doubt, the Obama lesson has heard the stories about European Mafia involvement in carbon trading, re-selling of credits by some nations, etc.
“Cap and not trade” will follow the Clean Water Act formula. The “trade” part was always optional, and it wasn’t as effective for acid rain abatement as some have claimed. Obama could give a hoot what the corporations think, he’ll get his money, either in permit fees, enforcement fines, or both.
Have any of you seen the chart depicting the governments role in health care put out by Kevin Brady, representative 8th district in Texas, http://house.gov/brady? Look for the chart that his staff developed for the connections, new fees, bureaucracies, and programs connected as an organizational chart. It is absolutely shows how reckless congress has been in creating Obama care. The complexity is unbelieveable I wonder what the chart for the EPA will look like when the seek to regulate emissions of CO2.