EPA Agrees to Limit Emissions From Power Plants, Refineries
From the NY Times: the headline would make it sound like there was some sort of debate going on inside the EPA…
First paragraph: “Threatened with lawsuits from environmental groups, the Obama administration has agreed to issue another round of greenhouse gas limits for both power plants and refineries — this time through a provision of the Clean Air Act that allows U.S. EPA to require pollution controls at both new and existing facilities.”
I’m sure the Obama administration was quaking in its boots under the unrelenting pressure of environmentalists who threatened to rain down lawsuits. At least we know now that the polar bear will not longer be a political pawn in this “power grab”.
You can read the story and get worked up, but, on second thought, why ruin your Christmas.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Next year will tell us if the new majority in Congress has what it takes to stand up to this usurping of their Constitutional authority.
don’t hold your breath. if the last 200 years are any indication of a trend, things are not going to change.
congress does nothing it is required to do, and reams of things is not authorised to do.
Next they’ll be regulating water vapor. Defund the EPA now!
Rocky;
Don’t overplay your hand!
“The EPA is run by “Czar” Carol Browner, a Commissioner of the Socialist International, which advocates world government as it’s stated goal. And as we see, even without world government, the U.S.A. is already being assessed $100 Billion – per year – as “reparations” for “climate change”. Naturally, this is only the beginning.”
That ‘assessment’ is a) a global total, not the US figure, and b) not agreed to in more than principle; there is no enforcement or detail laid out — and it is very unlikely ever to get either.
Dear, GOP/Tea Party
Please defund the EPA. Take away 100% of their budget.
Thank You.
My Christmas, such as it is, was already ruined by some scum-suckers who are publishing and selling my books without paying me for them. So I might as well read the article, too.
“You can read the story and get worked up, but, on second thought, why ruin your Christmas.”
Too late, Ryan.
All this nonsense will end once the Federal government goes truly bust. At some point all fiat money systems go belly up so it is just a matter of time. Lots of pain and wasted money for us working stiffs before that happens unfortunately.
Marry Christmas anyway!!
Rocky Horror,
Yes I know about her connections with socialist international.
On a related note, I’m pretty sure I’m the one that got the ball rolling on outing her association with Socialist International because I posted this information in the comments section in a Washington Times article on her sometime near the end of ’08. I also posted this information in a number of political forums prior to Dec of ’08.
Joseph Stiglitz (formally of the Clinton admin), Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are a few more well know people who are also members of this organization.
How I’d love to see a wikileaks posting of their internal documents…
Obama’s insidious plan is working. He’s flooded the U.S. economy with trillions of dollars, creating inflation. Oil prices are rising right on cue, even in the dead of winter when oil demand is low. Oil price crossed $91 per barrel today, up from $80 just a few weeks ago.
Radical enviros require high prices for oil, gasoline, and electricity to obtain their goals. When CO2 is regulated and taxed, electricity prices will skyrocket, just as Obama promised. Electric cars are not economic until gasoline reaches approximately $4 per gallon – and we are at $3 today. Wind and solar power are not economic until electricity reaches 20 to 25 cents per kWh, and Obama will celebrate when that day happens.
Meanwhile, rational countries are using as much oil, natural gas, and coal as possible.
Why even bother having elections when you can just have a King instead?!
ARRRRRRGGGGHHH
The very first sentence in the constitution, following the preamble, says this:
“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.”
Nowhere does the constitution authorize congress to delegate it’s legislative power.
If the EPA creates rules which carry the force of law then they are creating law. That is clearly a power given exclusively to congress. So the EPAs regulations are blatantly unconstitutional. If this is allowed to stand then America will be governed by unelected bureaucrats instead of elected representatives. We must not let this happen.
One man fiat rule … cool. Kagan wrote a Harvard Law Review paper … It was called “Presidential Administration”, president ruling by regulatory fiat. It’s how two bit tin horns dictators do it. Jobs, who needs jobs. we already have the highest corporate tax rates in the world. So we can afford a hoax.
So just cut off the money, see how far that goes.
I guess all pretense of the lie of AGW is kaput now.
I posted this link a long while back but here it is again.
Justin Rowlatt(Ethical Man) and John Podesta.
March 2009.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ethicalman/2009/03/obama_will_circumvent_congress_to_limit_us_emissio.html
MrCPhysics
“there is no mechanism right now for stopping the EPA once it decides it wants to do something under the Clean Air Act or the Superfund Law, outside of action in court.”
Surely there is a mechanism. If the legislature can’t actually dissolve the EPA because a bill to dissolve it would attract a presidential veto, can it not be stripped of resources? After all, your legislature still can control the ‘supply’ of funds, can’t it?
“This is the best voting issue yet presented by Obama and the Democrats to the Republicans. Better than healthcare. Americans, in general, don’t believe this stuff. More than many in the rest of the world, American voters of all stripes know when they are being conned, and when there are greedy hands in their pockets feeling for their wallets.”
So, are the Republicans going to tell the American voters that this is a con? Here in UK we don’t have any party in our legislature who is prepared to stand for this phoney nonsense. I keep thinking that someone somewhere will blow the whistle on this scam and tell the British public what they’ve long suspected, but we’re still waiting. Don’t hold your breath.
In the end Obama is helping China… and ensuring the next depression -economic not meteo- will remain well centred on the US. Smart politics no doubt…
Roger Sowell says on December 23, 2010 at 2:45 pm
So, an interesting question is: Cui bono.
Could it be that certain pension funds have high exposure to renewables and other industries expected to benefit from high oil prices, high electricity prices, etc, but which will fail in their absence? Are we being taxed to bail out certain union pension funds?
“FergalR says:
December 23, 2010 at 1:16 pm
The Irish government just published a Climate Change bill for consideration.
They propose 2050 emissions be 80% below 1990 levels. I almost feel like laughing.”
the way the Irish economy is shaping up, it looks a done deal :))
what’s there to get worked up about? Congress created the EPA and gave it a number of statutes, including the clean air act, to administer. The Supreme Court concluded that statute required the EPA to make an assessment about GHGs. The EPA (an agency of experts who have competed heavily to earn their positions) concluded that GHGs pose a threat. Once they made that endangerment assessment, they don’t have any discretion – the endangerment assessment automatically triggers certain requirements under the Clean Air Act. It’s Lisa Jackson’s job to follow the statutory mandate. Challenge the initial endangerment assessment or challenge congress to amend the clean air act, but this is not controversial – to suggest she/the EPA should have acted differently is to suggest that federal agencies should pick and choose when to follow their congressional mandates – it’s the executive’s job to implement legislation, not create it.
Roger, With the price hikes in rare earth metals and export duties and rationing imposed by China, electric cars and wind will NEVER be economical.
Switch to NG. With Shale gas there is at least 100 years supply. And its cheap.
Lisa Jackson went on to announce that the new EPA rules was only a small part of the Presidents new energy program, the “Strategic Cave Initiative”. Still in it’s early stages, the Army Corps of Engineers is still blasting out over 400 million square feet of caves high in the Sierra Nevada mountains.
In a move expected to save over 500 billion tons of CO2 emissions, large segments of San Francisco and Los Angeles population will be whisked away to live in the energy efficient caves sometime within the next 10 years. Sans light, running water, and heat, the caves are expected to offer a glimpse of our eco-friendly futuristic life style.
Bubbagyro,
“They should shut them all down: I have wood for my stoves and am well defended here in New Hampshire. The US population is due for a shake-out of the weak hands, so we can restart at 1786 levels.”
There are a few million Chinese who are used to cold winters who are just waiting for that shakeout to come “visit” you. I wouldn’t be so quick to hope for that shakeout until the whole world has lost ocean shipping capabilities!!
Related news: EPA-Texas Feud Escalates Over New Carbon Regulations
MORE – see link above
.
FergalR,
If the Irish government wants to reduce CO2 emissions by 80%, then they can start by turning down the heating in all government buildings by 80% and sell off 80% of the government vehicle fleet.
After all, nobody needs laws to do a good thing, do they?
Roger Sowell says:
I hate to let reality get in the way of a good theory, but
(1) The reason that Obama is “flooding” the U.S. economy with trillions of dollars is that we have just had the largest financial meltdown and economic contraction since the Great Depression. Government is the one entity that can spend during such a recession when the private sector and consumer spending has significantly contracted.
(2) Most economists think we are more in danger of deflation than inflation: http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/17/news/economy/cpi_inflation/index.htm and http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/08/10/wsj-survey-risks-of-deflation-on-the-rise-fed-on-hold-longer/
(3) Oil prices depend on many other things much more than monetary or spending policies in the U.S., particularly on this timescale.
It is remarkable how well ideological blinders can shield one from reality.
[Apologies if repeat – didn’t have time to scroll thru all responses above]
This is actually good news. Here’s why: it forces a litigated response, much of which will require depositions and most likely some testimony, which will expose or at the very least call into serious question the “science” at issue here.
And the economics of the rulings now become very material in assessing impact, and ultimately executive branch overreach.
At minimum, I believe you will see state nullification (e.g. Texas, see above) of at least some of this ruling, and best case will be a concerted movement to challenge not only the unilateral EPA ruling, but the pseudoscience used to justify it and numerous other cases (including fossil fuel liability suits, in which practically everyone has standing).
More here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/science/earth/10epa.html
And here:
http://www.globalclimatelaw.com/