The Hill E2 wire reports:
House GOP spending bill prohibits funding for EPA climate regs
A government spending bill unveiled Friday night by House Republicans would prohibit funding for Environmental Protection Agency climate regulations through September of this year.
The continuing resolution, which would fund the government through the end of the fiscal year, is the latest attempt by Republicans to stop EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Republicans argue that pending EPA climate rules will destroy the economy and result in significant job losses. GOP lawmakers, including House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.), have introduced legislation to permanently block the agency’s climate authority.
The bill would block funding for all current and pending EPA climate regulations for stationary sources.
Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), the chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee on interior and the environment, said he worked closely on the language with Upton. He said the language would give Upton time to move forward with his legislation.
“It has become clear to me in talking to the job creators in this country that allowing these regulations to go into effect would prevent job creation and inhibit economic growth at a time when our economy is still struggling,” Simpson said in a statement. “It should be up to Congress, not the Administration, to determine whether and how to regulate greenhouse gases, and in attempting to do so without congressional authority, I’m concerned that EPA has overreached.”
The continuing resolution makes massive cuts to the EPA’s budget. The legislation cuts EPA funding by $3 billion, 29 percent below fiscal year 2010. Overall, Simpson cut $4.5 billion from his subcommittee’s budget.
Full report here: House GOP spending bill prohibits funding for EPA climate regs
The way out for Obama is to delay the EPA regs. and make a deal to soft pedal wind and solar in exchange for a move away from coal and towards nuclear and natural gas. That way he’s cut CO2 and marginalized coal, which ought to be a good enough half-loaf for his supporters.
hey John, you asked do they hire skeptical thinkers at the E.P.A. NO they don’t hire thinkers at all, they might stand up to their bs. ideas and say no to foolish policies like are being proposed by the administration. And they can’t have people who care about the greater good of the country doing the right thing because its the right thing to do. It would make it look like a responsible adult, were running something in some part of the government of our country.
Tucci78,
I LOVE your comments! You can always tell a physician from a physicist. The erudite physician has a sense of humor.
@Sean says:
February 12, 2011 at 10:20 am
——
Sean, you pretty much nail it! The Obama Administration is in an all-out war with coal, driven by the environmental lobby.
See: http://bactanalysis.com/bact-regulations/the-bact-analysis-guide-epa-releases-bact-ghg-guidance
GHG BACT (Best Available Control Technology) options for large PCC (pulverized coal combustion) plants will include:
a) Carbon Capture and Geological Sequestration – this isn’t even proven to work yet!!
b) Efficiency improvements – utilities are doing all they can right now to squeeze every watt out of every pound of coal!
c) Fuel-switching = from coal to natural gas.
Obama admin wants to shut down some ancient coal burners (we have some in the Midwest USA that generate most of the pollution load of the country), force most of ’em to natural gas (no mercury or sulfur emissions, no “mountaintop removal” mining issues, no hazardous coal ash disposal concerns etc.) and kill off domestic coal.
Follow the money & watch which members of Congress from either party are pushing this! Very interesting politics, you were right on the mark.
Onward and upward:
“February 11, 2011
The following information was released by the office of Missouri Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer:
U.S. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-9) today reintroduced legislation that would save taxpayers millions of dollars by prohibiting the United States from contributing to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an organization fraught with waste and engaged in dubious science.
The IPCC advises governments around the world on climate change, and supporters of cap-and-tax legislation have used questionable findings by the IPCC as reason to support onerous legislation and regulations for small businesses and farmers, Luetkemeyer said. Criticism of this science intensified over the last two years when emails publicly released from a university in England showed that leading global scientists intentionally manipulated climate data and suppressed legitimate arguments in peer-reviewed journals. Researchers were asked to delete and destroy emails so that a small number of climate alarmists could continue to advance their environmental agenda.”
http://www.powergenworldwide.com/index/display/wire-news-display/1357883185.html
the_Butcher says:
February 12, 2011 at 12:17 am
So R. Gates seems to support the destruction of the US economy, unless he’s being sarcastic?
The weather is not a problem, those who try to make money out of it IS the problem and should not be given a penny to them
______
R. Gates is a fiscal conservative who:
*supports a balanced budget amendment
*a complete overhaul of campaign finance reform so that the best leaders (and not just the best financed) get to lead
*and who fully recognizes that thrift and innovation are the only things that can ever make a country prosperous.
To balance the budget will take serious sacrifices on the part of every sector of society, and every dime that is spent should be carefully weighed in terms of its short and long-term impacts (remembering that we want to encourage thrift and innovation). I’m an Independent voter, but I favor the kind of conservatism espoused by Ron & Rand Paul, who are not afraid to go after that long term conservative sacred cow of the grossly bloated Defense Department budget. They’ve been booed at conservative gatherings when they mention sprawling military bases around the world and cutting wasteful defense spending, the but there is incredible waste in this area of the budget, and honest fiscal conservatives like Ron & Rand Paul know it, and aren’t afraid to put this sacred cow, and the bloated corporate defense-related welfare system it supports on the chopping block. I actually support looking at cutting back EPA programs, so long as it is part of a package that makes a similar percentage cut in all other programs, including the sacred cow of the military related sector of corporate-controlled D.C.- the Defense Department budget.
But thanks for your assumption on my political leanings…
@ur momisugly R. Gates says:
February 12, 2011 at 1:28 pm
——–
REPLY Nice to meet you at last, Mr. Gates!! You and I may be kindred spirits in many regards. Kudos on your mention regarding the bloated military spending, corporate welfare (I get all fussed-up about crop subsidies in general), and campaign spending.
I also support hard & fast term limits on congressman (5 two-year terms should be enough), senators (2 six-year terms) etc. Also, I’d start balancing the budget with their own bloated paychecks, staff payrolls etc.
Although I am a skeptic of climate-change science, I also have great respect for the USEPA (and none for the CRU/Hockey Team), and the US public will be ill-served if cutbacks to the EPA impact clean water, hazwaste regulations etc.
Is it just me, or is WUWT starting to sound like the comments section for “Drudge Report”?
To expand a little on the political image battle that these Republicans face, imaging this ad, funded by Soros:
“[image of smokestack spewing black smoke] The Environmental [emphasis]Protection[/emphasis] Agency has stopped many of this country’s worst polluters from endangering the health of our children. [switch to image of child coughing] But now the pollution industry lobbyists have convinced some in Congress to gut the EPA by cutting its budget almost in half. [note: no mention of political party since ad is paid for by “non-partisan” group]. This radical move could result in illness and death for millions of people in this country and around the world. [switch to footage of hurricane] Don’t let Congress strip EPA of the funds that it needs to protect our environment. [image of drought and forest fire] Contact your Representative today at XXX-XXX-XXXX and tell them not to gut the EPA. Paid for by the Coalition to save our children.”
CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
February 12, 2011 at 2:14 pm
“Although I am a skeptic of climate-change science, I also have great respect for the USEPA (and none for the CRU/Hockey Team), and the US public will be ill-served if cutbacks to the EPA impact clean water, hazwaste regulations etc.”
I agree with the specific fields you mentioned, but the EPA’s ‘endangered species’ department and the ‘science’ supporting much of it is junk at least as bogus as the worst from the AGW gang. The wolf issue in the western states is perhaps the largest current example of that but that is just the tip of that rotten iceberg.
So, I’d like to see the funding for that fraudulent ‘listing’ racket cut by 99%.
This is a good start. But we can go farther by cutting travel budgets by billions and those who can justify flying can take the V22 Osprey, a former priority funding item from just a few years back.
R. Gates,
What do your political leanings tell you about confiscating the private property of oil, natural gas and coal companies? How do you lean on U.S. sovereignty versus international control of energy usage? What is your personal opinion of the Koch brothers (1) that they helped millions of people by providing cheaper energy or (2) that they are evil rich people who deserve to have their plants targeted by the EPA?
At 11:51 AM on 12 February, Dr. Dave had written:
.
Colleague, when you’ve spent more than three decades dealing with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnosis-related_group"DRGs (they got rammed up our tochus in New Jersey before the rest of the country got shafted with ’em), you either develop a sense of humor or you wind up screaming at padded walls.
Al Gored says:
February 12, 2011 at 2:42 pm
CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
February 12, 2011 at 2:14 pm
“Although I am a skeptic of climate-change science, I also have great respect for the USEPA (and none for the CRU/Hockey Team), and the US public will be ill-served if cutbacks to the EPA impact clean water, hazwaste regulations etc.”
I agree with the specific fields you mentioned, but the EPA’s ‘endangered species’ department and the ‘science’ supporting much of it is junk at least as bogus as the worst from the AGW gang. The wolf issue in the western states is perhaps the largest current example of that but that is just the tip of that rotten iceberg.
So, I’d like to see the funding for that fraudulent ‘listing’ racket cut by 99%.”
—-
REPLY I think you mean Department of the Interior and not the USEPA! EPA isn’t involved in wolves etc.
Also, I’m not a big supporter of ranch operators who utilize free feeding rights on US park lands to make a big profit, but then want to eradicate wolves etc. We need the apex predators to maintain a balanced ecosystem. Lack of predation is why chronic-wasting disease is spreading like wildfire through elk & whitetail deer herds.
We have coyotes all over the Chicago area now, and I love it! They keep the pest population down…..racoons, rabbits, cats, small dogs, etc. I’d enjoy having wolves in Illinois, we have had migrant pumas and the odd black bear in recent years.
The House under Boehner is functioning as a check and balance to the Green Police (EPA) Menace.
I tip my hat to the man. Sure, the Prez. can veto the bill. Nobody said this was going to be a slam-dunk or a cake-walk.
Finally, a leader emerges in America who is looking out for the well-being of all.
kcrucible & James Sexton says:
February 12, 2011 at 2:16 am
Ted says:
February 11, 2011 at 7:43 pm
Having read a little more I’m putting the cork back in the Bubbly bottle maybe/ yes we definitely do we need a lot tougher medicine, it’s time to play hard ball.
I just read Steve Milloy, ………
kcrucible and James, Thanks for the a more positive outcome and correction. I’ll have a couple of Co2 charged Ice colds brew with my spicy pizza and Hockey game tonight in celebration!
Cheers Ted.
R. Gates says:
February 12, 2011 at 1:28 pm
I actually support looking at cutting back EPA programs, so long as it is part of a package that makes a similar percentage cut in all other programs, including the sacred cow of the military related sector of corporate-controlled D.C.- the Defense Department budget.
=====================================
As usual your one-size fits-all simplistic attempt at logic…does not pass.
What the EPA “deserves” in spending cuts, is a completely different animal than cutting spending in national defense.
The EPA has outlived its useful life for the most part [but not completely]. Our air is some of the cleanest on earth and the EPA has become a political mouthpiece for eco-fascists and global warming chicken littles.
I agree that the military bureaucracy is a problem but, unlike the EPA or any other non-necessary government agencies that DO NOT DEAL WITH LIFE OR DEATH ON A DAILY BASIS….the military, that does…well…their bureaucracy will crumble by its own natural selection.
Wars tend to do that.
You want a lean, mean, fast, strong, super-advanced military and you don’t get that by cutting spending there.
You get it by reallocating that spending towards 21-Century conflict needs….which center more and more around special forces.
I am personally disgusted of how bloated the US government has become. Think how much more advanced our society would be if we restored government with that same “survival of the fittest” mentality.
It should be “for the people, by the people, of the people”.
And it is up to us to limit its food intake, administer the liposuction, and kicking its ass in boot camp fitness, UNTIL it is LEAN AND STRONG and it works for THE PEOPLE again!
And that would include limiting (and restoring) its role to the following as originally intended in this country’s design:
Life Safety, the Rule of Law, Infrastructure, and National Defense.
Nothing much else.
As I said earlier, Donald Trump would make a great president.
I can totally see him going through entire departments that are outmoded or have outlived their useful life, saying “YOU’RE FIRED.”
Oh to see the day….
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Finally….they need to just shut down the gov’t and then they need to start putting these crooks at EPA (and FCC – that’s you genachowski) in jail for overstepping their bounds…Congress (representing and accountable to the people) makes the laws, not these appointed stooges….
Do they want to cut the EPA budget by 30%. is that how I should interpret this?
And since I suspect that climate change issues do not constitute 30% of the EPA’s activities, would it be a reasonable to infer that this is intended as a way of curtailing the EPA’s activities in general. And that the climate change reason is just political camouflage?
And so what is Upton’s background? Is he in someones pocket?
I also noticed that this legislation is intended to be permanent. In other words extending beyond the current economic crisis. So the “harms jobs” reason is just more political camouflage?
LazyTeenager says:
“Do they want to cut the EPA budget by 30%. is that how I should interpret this?”
In my view, you should interpret it like this: EPA should be completely defunded. Period.
The country would be better off without this out of control, meddling bureaucracy.
But by all means, if you think the EPA should be financially supported, feel free to contribute to them out of your own pocket.
Eric (skeptic) says:
February 12, 2011 at 2:48 pm
R. Gates,
What do your political leanings tell you about confiscating the private property of oil, natural gas and coal companies? How do you lean on U.S. sovereignty versus international control of energy usage? What is your personal opinion of the Koch brothers (1) that they helped millions of people by providing cheaper energy or (2) that they are evil rich people who deserve to have their plants targeted by the EPA?
_____
In regards to personal property– so long as it was acquired in an honest manner that did not steal it from “We the People” through backroom or sweatheart deals or any other less than honest manner, than no government should have the right to take that away. There are some exceptions, when a clear reason to take private property cleary serves the interests of “We the People”, but in such cases, which occur every day for public improvements such as highways, etc. then a private property owner should be compensated at market value+.
In regards to energy independency, no greater cause exists so far as I’m concerned. Every nation should secure and develop its own internal supply of energy, and have full rights to do so. On the general issue of personal energy use…American’s tend to be energy hogs, and each person should probably take a look at their energy use. Conservation is far more effective than trying to develop new sources.
In regards to the Koch brothers…I know very little about them. They may indeed be providing lots of great things for people, and I tend not to use the terms “evil” and “good” when referring to people. They are capitalists, and as such, they see the world under the viewpoint of what is good for their business and as profit and loss– Nothing wrong with that at all, though it seems they throw a lot of money around toward getting certain politicians into office, and I tend to no like our democracy controlled in such as way (Oprah’s support of Obama is a good example on the other side). “We the People” have lost our Democracy to big money, and this spans across both parties, and hence, the only way to get our Democracy back to cut the umbilical cord that flows from big money to thier stooges in D.C.
_____
Response to savethesharks says:
February 12, 2011 at 6:17 pm
___
You remain incredibly off target with regards to how much waste and excess their is in the U.S. Military. Yes, we need to be lean and mean, and also use our resources wisely. I support a strong military so long as it is not “strong” in stupid and unnecessary ways. The military does more damage to our country by excessive and stupid spending that wastes our resources and tax dollars. We should be strong enough to discourage any would be foe to think long and hard before attacking us, and strong enough to inflict a massive knockout strike against our enemy if attacked. But their are hundreds of billions of wasted dollars in military spending that simply serve to line the pockets of defense contractors who supply us with unecessary weapons, services, basese etc. People like Ron and Rand Paul get this, and I love it when they piss off the conservatives who don’t. Wasteful and unecessary military spending is about the most un-patriotic thing someone could do, as it drains valuable tax money that could be used for more productive purposes. We should be strong, but not stupidly so…
R. Gates says:
“You remain incredibly off target with regards to how much waste and excess their [sic] is in the U.S.
MilitaryGovernment, especially NASA/GISS.”Their [sic]. Fixed it for you.☺
I think budget cuts for EPA, NOAA, NASA would be of great benefit for the Americans.
Even more effective would be a combination with a program to protect witnesses helping to identify:
bribery,
manipulation of data and fraud,
deletion of emails or data,
conspiry against FOIA requests,
conspiry to prevent publication of dissenting opinions,
use of taxpayer payed time for activist labour,
violation of codes of ethics,
etc.
Obama can have a 29% cut or veto and get 100% cut. Obama can’t draft a budget. His only power is to veto spending.
Yes I have met the Koch brothers and even met their father years ago. Nice and rational minds. Joe Romm can’t belly ache because several have MIT PhD’s.
It takes very little money at the EPA because all they do is read bulletins from the IPCC. They do zero research of their own.
CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
February 12, 2011 at 4:12 pm
“I think you mean Department of the Interior and not the USEPA! EPA isn’t involved in wolves etc.”
The EPA runs the Endangered Species Act, which is the root of the wolf story and so much more.
Your point of view is typical of people who don’t actually have to live with wolves.
Human hunters are much simpler predators to manage in areas where there are already people. And back in the pre-European ‘natural’ era, Native North Americans were THE apex predator.
R. Gates says:
February 12, 2011 at 7:22 pm
=============================
As usual, you lace your arguments with enough truth.
But when you zoom camera back and look for those little strings of truth…all one can see, in your bigger picture, is a steaming pile of you know what.
Also, in your paragraph nonsense response to me, you completely conflated, misspoke, misquoted, and distorted what I was saying,
You have no sense of perception whatsoever of the real world of the military…and the many specialists who operate there, and they, just like the real scientists, whom you try to ally yourself with [or sometimes pretend to be one], would eat you for lunch.
You live in a dream ivory tower world, sprinkled with fairy dust, far removed from the world’s real ills….in a world of “AGW models” and computer-generated non-reality.
Never in the many scores of the posts that I have seen you write, has ever ONE been without spin. Seriously, you could not punch a cogent argument out of a paper bag.
But then again…you make it fun to pounce on all the weaknesses…so from that standpoint, as I have always said: Keep it up.
This thread had nothing to do with the military, R…but as usual, you use your little highjacking technique to try and steer it off course.
It is about the EPA….and ever last DOLLAR of that 3 Billion [and then some] could be better appropriated to more important aspects of government.
I hope Lisa Jackson is seriously shaking in her pumps.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA