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.
The U.S. Congress has a Delegation Doctrine, under which agencies can be created to create regulations – a form of law. This link provides a good overview.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-4.html
All Congress has to do is declare a CO2 non pollutant, a “clean gas” and non harmful to humans. What’s so hard about that?
@ur momisugly BillyBob says:
December 23, 2010 at 3:14 pm
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.
It’s not just rare earths. The commodity market generally is going thru the roof for the past few months. Copper, for example, is up nearly $2000/ton since Oct. – http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704118504576034083436931412.html?mod=WSJ_Markets_RightMostPopular
From the NYT article:
Because putting the rules in place will demand significant resources, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has decided to focus on the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions first, McCarthy said. The agency will still meet its Clean Air Act obligations for other industries, she said, leaving open the possibility that performance standards could be issued later for other sectors, such as cement kilns.
“In refineries and power plants, we have large amounts of emissions, we have significant opportunities for cost-effective reductions, and we have relatively few sources to have to regulate,” McCarthy said. “So it was her decision that in 2011 this would be the focus of EPA’s attention.”
==============
Yet, in their insulated little world, they forget who will pay for their indulgences.
And, who won’t.
… are a hedge (a play for commodities market hedgers). It’s either oil or perhaps PMs (precious metals) at this point.
With QE2 there is now ‘free’ capital for investing in a few sure money makers, i.e., a few proven commodities like oil, food stuffs (notice the rising prices there too?) Have you seen how ‘thin’ the trading has been on the equities market (sans HFT – High Frequency Trading ‘moves’ for which the market i.e. the NYSE itself makes money)?
.
I read that there wouldn’t be any proposed rule until second half of 2011 and it wouldn’t begin to take effect until 2012 at the earliest which is a substantial delay and the AGW cabal are carping about it.
The incoming congress easily has the votes (more bi-partison than most things too) for a Congressional Review Act joint resolution against the new EPA rule. President Obama would have to veto congress’ joint resolution. Not sure if they have the votes to override a presidential veto but the house can still refuse to fund it and there’s nothing the EPA or president can do about that. I doubt Obama will put his signature on a veto. It’s just lip service. It appears to be just saving face at this point so those who need to say they tried can say they tried.
Are you the same poster that was castigated a bit back for being a couple market cycles behind (lagging in contemporary knowledge of present economic indicators)?
Old, high grain prices near by Ray Grabanski
12/23/2010 @ur momisugly 10:51am
Grain Prices Heading Higher In 2011 On Tight Supplies, Rabobank Says
12/22/2010 01:32PM
10 year Maize price chart
Guess What’s Going up in Price? Almost Everything By Mitchell Clark
Dec 23, 2010, 1:21 PM
You think rising commodity prices are going to contribute to deflation?
C’mon, you’re smarter than that, Joel.
.
Anyone still defending the FCC?
totally just curious…
If you don’t understand how how czars and ministries work, then read a little history from the former USSR.
The framers of the constitution never intended for the executive branch to have this much power. In fact, they moved to the New World to escape such a system.
When the president can appoint regulators, and congress can pass 2000 page bills that leave the actual policy making and enforcement to said regulators, then our liberty is stolen.
At this point we don’t know the level of regulation.
In could conceivably mimic the proposed fuel economy standards, which were effectively written by GM,Ford and Chrysler.
Some coal fired generation is going to be retired anyway in the next few years, regardless of what EPA does.
I think they are alive and well and enforcing radio laws (recall, originally, they were named FRC – Federal Radio Commission vs present-day moniker: “FCC”) as intended aside from the recent action of three of the commissioners to set policy applicable to the internet, to wit:
Example: NOTICE OF VIOLATION
.
@ur momisugly Joel Shore December 23, 2010 at 4:18 pm
Mr. Shore, Obama’s flooding the economy with trillions was exactly the wrong thing at the wrong time – but only if one were trying to put people back to work and create jobs. He has done everything he possibly could to keep employment down, and put money in the economy that would be useless. Useless, other than to create inflation. Such a financial “idiot” as Warren Buffet agrees with me on this. As others wrote above, oil is not the only commodity zooming in price due to Obama’s inflationary moves.
With the world economy slowed just a bit, what could possibly be creating a huge demand in commodities? Nope, it is purely inflationary magic, thanks to Obama and his policies.
And before you go off on a rant, yes, I happen to know more than a little about the oil market.
“Why are the Republicans NOT stopping this agenda?”
Because they can’t. The Congress abdicated their responsibility to the executive branch by allowing this agency to make its own regulations without Congressional approval. This is part of the “progressive” strategy of putting more and more power in the hands of unelected bureaucrats who do not face the voters in elections and are out of the reach of Congress.
We simply have to suffer another two years of this and then engage in a massive steam cleaning of these departments to include the firing of every single political appointee in every department.
I have also noticed that same patter. For example, cutting the Social Security payroll tax in the very same year that babies born in 1946 (the first post-war year) turn 65 and Social Security payouts begin to skyrocket. In other words, he cut that tax at exactly the worst possible time. This is when Social Security needs increased revenues, not decreases in revenue because the Congress hasn’t saved for the boomers’ retirement, it blew the social security money as it was paid in and handed the Social Security Administration and IOU instead. All the SSA trust fund consists of is these IOUs.
Europe’s experience with ETS has demonstrated that carbon permits do not reduce emissions. The only significant co2 emissions reduction have resulted from from fuel switching from coal to gas like the UK did under Margaret Thatcher and from a from a declining economy. If the emissions from the manufacturing and transportation of all the goods that are now imported from China are added, emissions are increasing. One reason that imports to Europe are increasing is that electricity rates have risen so much that manufacturing is now at a disadvantage to India and China.
Thatcher invented the global warming scam to kill the coal industry unions and support the use of newly discovered gas reserves offshore. The US is now in a similar position with newly discovered inexpensive natural gas reserves. The main result of the new EPA regs will be to force utilities to switch from coal to gas. Coal states will revolt and Joe Manchin will switch partys. The blow to coal will be softened if the regs are gradually enforced. Coal demand from China and India will continue to grow.
One factor Lisa Jackson should consider is that if prices for gasoline and electricity rapidly increase there could be riots. Congress should make it clear to the American public just what these costs will be.
Golly, Joel is an econ expert, too! Is there anything he doesn’t know?
Answer: No. But the problem is, what he ‘knows’ isn’t very accurate. Joel says:
Econ was my minor, so I’ve learned a little about our country’s financial history.
The near-Great Depression of 1921 was triggered, among other things, by spending during WW I – and was much worse than the current “Great Recession.”
GNP dropped by 24% between 1920 and 1921, much more than in the current decline. Unemployment more than doubled in one year, from 2 million to 4.9 million.
Those numbers make the current recession look like a hiccup. But the U.S. emerged from that pre-Depression depression in short order — and not by spending our way out of it; that doesn’t work. Even if the economy recovers, it will have about 5 trillion more dollars chasing the same number of goods and services [note that I said “if.”] And we now have another big stimulus in the extension of the Bush tax cuts. There may be inflation, or deflation… or stagflation, like we had in the ’70’s: the cost of everything went up – except for employee pay.
So, to get back to the Depression of 1921. How did we get ourselves out of it so fast, and into the Roaring 20’s?
The answer was not spending like drunk sailors; the answer was the same that any household faces when its income is cut: the U.S. cut spending and cut taxes. Big time.
At the federal level, taxes were cut from over $6.5 billion to $4 billion over two years. Government spending was reduced from $6.3 billion to $3.2 billion over the same period, from 1920 – 1922. Federal spending and taxes continued to decline for 2 1/2 more years, as the government began paying off debt until by the end of the ’20’s, the U.S. was completely debt-free.
Due to President Harding’s swift action, GNP completely recovered by 1922, and unemployment fell to only 6.7% . By 1926 unemployment was at just 1.8%. [Current U-6 unemployment, which includes those who have given up looking for work, is north of 17%.]
So there is a proven way to make the pain last only a short time: cut taxes and cut spending. And cut them by a lot. Had we done that when the subprime crisis first hit, by now the country would be more prosperous, and with less unemployment, than it was in 2006. Instead, we have added $trillions to our spending, and only deferred a major tax increase for two years. After that… BOHICA.
Flooding the economy with printed dollars will inevitably cause problems down the road. Further, while there is a reasonable argument to be made that it was necessary to provide the country with liquidity when a run on the banks was threatened at the start of the crisis, there is absolutely zero credible rationale for continuing to funnel $trillions into non-existent “shovel ready” pockets.
“Never let a good crisis go to waste” is the call of of opportunists greedily picking taxpayer pockets. The country has always benefitted in the long run from a strong, stable dollar. But now, Obama is handing out Zimbabwe dollars. The chickens have not yet come home to roost. But they will.
Regulations have to come quickly before people notice that the temperature is dropping without greenhouse gas regulation. After regulations, the drop in temperature is a triumph of government and its regulations.
Joel Shore says:
December 23, 2010 at 4:18 pm
“It is remarkable how well ideological blinders can shield one from reality.”
============================================
And you and your fellow CAGW parishoners would know…first hand, right?
Thanks for that self-confession….even if it was projected.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
This infuriates me to no end.
Instead of focusing on black carbon and methane, they would rather waste our time and money (in lawsuits and legislation) to protect their dogmatic beliefs. Have to protect the hive, instead of protecting the people.
I have it on good word that the house energy committee that Greg Walden R-Red Sea
Of Oregon, is on, that Lisa “Action” Jackson is going to have make sure that she has a comfortable seat-in front of the committee….
David S says:
December 23, 2010 at 2:54 pm
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.
———————————————————————
Delegation of power is implicit in the granting of power. Otherwise, Congress would have to personally administer every law.
But, the reverse is also true. The ways and means vary, but in practice delegation can be taken away. I’m not an expert on US government, but if the EPA can be denied (or seriously limited) its funding by Congress, that is one way. Another would be a resolution that requires a high bar (eg 2/3 majority) for approval of regulations. While that might be vetoed, it would be sending a powerful message to the agencies involved that they might have a budget of $10 next year if they continue to defy the elected representatives who are in charge of the money.
I should have mentioned in my post above – the power to make regulations stems from the primary legislation, which is under the control of elected representatives. Any agency that has to implement legislation needs regulations, but the scope of the regulations and mechanisms for their approval are governed by legislation enacted by elected representatives.
Less point scoring and more doing the boring work of ensuring that laws deliver no more and no less than intended is needed here.
Not to worry. The harsh winter in Germany has resulted in a drop in funding for Intel’s solar startup Spectrawatt in New York.
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Green-IT/Intel-Spinoff-SpectraWatt-Announces-Plant-Closing-189576/
If the Germans give up on this nonsense, the US is not far behind.
At least the US has the luxury of fuel switching to reduce co2 emissions by switching from coal to natural gas for electricity generation. Germany has been rapidly building new brown coal plants to meet the demands of Europe’s only remaining manufacturing country. Maybe, Andrea Merkel, a physicist has finally got it.
“Solar energy generation is not under debate any more, that was figured out back in 1938.”
Well, thank you, Leif, for being the holder of all truth, and deciding not only what can be debated, but in fact, what is being debated.
I suppose we can all stop thinking about this now. Leif has spoken.
the quicker thay shut everything down the better than the y gen ratbags will realise what thay have done to our economy