Energy Tax Prevention Act Would Put the Reins on EPA Power Grab
Freedom Action Supports Quick Passage
Washington, D.C., March 10, 2011 —A House subcommittee on Thursday is expected to mark up a bill, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, sponsored by Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) that would block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions using the Clean Air Act. Freedom Action supports enactment of their critical legislation.
“The Energy Tax Prevention Act is one of the most important bills that Congress will vote on this year. We applaud Chairmen Upton and Whitfield for their efforts to move it quickly to the House floor. The future economic prosperity of America is at stake,” said Myron Ebell, Director of Freedom Action.
Under the Obama administration, EPA has been moving forward with new Clean Air Act regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The new regulations will do nothing to reduce global levels of the gases alleged to cause global warming, but will raise energy prices, make consumers poorer, and destroy jobs in manufacturing and other energy-intensive industries.
“The Obama Administration’s EPA is trying to implement cap-and-trade, which was defeated in Congress and overwhelmingly rejected by the American people, through the regulatory back door. And as President Obama promised during the 2008 campaign, under his plan ‘electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket,’” Ebell concluded.
“The debate on EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations boils down to a very simple issue. Who shall determine the content and direction of national policy — elected representatives accountable to the people at the ballot box, or non-elected bureaucrats, trial lawyers, and activist judges appointed for life? The Constitution permits only one answer to that question,” said Marlo Lewis, Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an affiliate organization to Freedom Action.
h/t to Bob Ferguson SPPI
“…Because CO2 is well mixed, the net effect of CO2 taxes on Australia will be a net increase in CO2 over Australia, largely imported from China and India on the wind. The Law of Unintended Consequences at work, also known as “why climate scientists should not design national energy programs”.”
I would not say this is Unintended. There are 2 groups:
1. Those who actually beleive in AGW will say “at least it’s a start” and “as Chindia develops they will cut their emissions” (thus providing further evidence of the fall in standards of western education….)
2. Those who want the tax$/green$, well why would they care.
The EPA needs to police pollution. unfortunateley for them Carbon Dioxide is anything but pollution. Do you know of another type of pollution that causes trees to grow?
Geez –
something just not right when we have to protect ourselves from a “protection” agency.
An agency that determines that CO2 is a polutant needs to step back, take a deep breath, and then not exhale. Then, tell us again how CO2 is a polutant, but do it in writing because they are still holding their breath. Wouldn’t, couldn’t, shouldn’t exhale CO2 – that’s just not prudent.
/grin
Things like this show what bad shape our country is in. But, with so many on the take it’s hard to get rid of the ones causing the problems.
Regarding non-CO2 polluting energy sources, it will be interesting to see if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will get involved with Rossi’s demonstration of his 1MW power plant. They’re caught in a catch-22 situation:
http://pesn.com/2011/03/07/9501782_Cold_Fusion_Steams_Ahead_at_Worlds_Oldest_University/
Darren Parker says:
March 10, 2011 at 4:28 am
Yes I do and I describe it in my “Ode to Sheen”:
I woke up this morning and found Sheen on my sheets, Sheen in my shower, and Sheen on my shoes. I found a layer of Sheen on my car, and the road to work had a fresh dusting of Sheen, too! My gosh, there was Sheen EVERYWHERE! It was on my computer screen, crumbs of Sheen were on my keyboard, and Sheen filled my wastebasket. It wasn’t until I finally flushed Sheen in the bathroom that I had hope there would be an end to… um… Sheen!
Good, good, good. Democrats, especially senators who vote against this bill, including Obama with his veto pen need to ask themselves before voting if they feel lucky today in terms of their future political careers. Voting for Cap n’ Trade didn’t work out so well for them last time, and Obama only got in because McIdiot was also in favor of Cap n’ Trade.
The house generates is the source of all spending and budgets. This regulation can be attached to a bill that will pass and it becomes law. The taxes by the EPA are illegal. They will give friends waivers and make punitive taxes on others. Obamacare is now extending a lot of waivers. The EPA will also do waiver favors.
It is good that someone is putting a boot on the neck of the EPA but there is something more Important -Decertify the 2008 Presidential Election and put two boots on the neck of Obama.
This is the time for states rights to prevail !
Is the election of Barrack Obama Legal?
The election of a president is the collective action of the United States of America. Each state has a collective number of votes that are cast for the person directed by the electorate (common interpretation) of the state for a person that meets the requirements stated in the Constitution. If the person nominated for the job has not provided proof of his eligibility, then is he legally president?
Can a state decertify the votes of its electoral college until it has received adequate proof of the eligibility of the candidate(s) (such as president)? This is the responsibility of the state legislatures or the Secretary of State. It is not the responsibility of the U.S. Congress.
If enough or many states decertify their votes of their electoral college then will that overturn the election? Should Ohio, Arizona, Alaska, Texas, and Florida be the first to Decertify there Electoral College votes for the 2008 Presidential Election?
It is time to take action- call or write to your state’s Secretary of State and request a Freedom of Information request form. Then file the form and request copies of the documents that the Democratic Party filed to certifiy that Barach Obama was their candidate for President. If you get the information review it to see if it states that Barach Obama meets the Constitutional requirements to be President.
If the information does not state that Barach Obama meets the requirements then the above referenced action should be done.
Decertify the 2008 Presidential Election and let the chips fall where they may.
List of SOS phone numbers – you can also get to their web-site to get their E_mail addresses.
Is the election of Barrack Obama Legal?
Decertify there Electoral College votes for the 2008 Presidential Election?
It is time to take action- call or write to your state’s Secretary of State and request a Freedom of Information request form. Then file the form and request copies of the documents that the Democratic Party filed to certifiy that Barach Obama was their candidate for President. If you get the information review it to see if it states that Barach Obama meets the Constitutional requirements to be President.
If the information does not state that Barach Obama meets the requirements then the above referenced action should be done.
Decertify the 2008 Presidential Election and let the chips fall where they may.
List of SOS phone numbers – you can also get to their web-site to get their E_mail addresses.
Secretary of State offices register corporations, limited liability companies (LLC’s), partnerships, business mergers and acquisitions, and articles of dissolution. For your convenience, here are quick links and phone numbers for the Secretary of State offices for all U.S. states plus and territories: Alabama Secretary of State, 334-242-7200
Alabama Secretary of StateP.O. Box 5616Montgomery, Alabama 36103-5616
Alaska Secretary of State, 907-465-2530
550 West 7th Avenue, Suite 1500
Anchorage, AK 99501-3567
Investigations Phone: (907) 269-8437 Investigations Fax: (907) 269-8195
Email: investigations@alaska.gov
Arizona Secretary of State, 602-542-3230
The Honorable Ken Bennett
Secretary of State
1700 West Washington Street, 7th Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85007-2888
Arkansas Secretary of State, 501-682-1010
State Capitol, RM 256
Little Rock, AR 72201
California Secretary of State, 916-653-3795 secretary.bowen@sos.ca.gov
California Secretary of State
1500 11th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Colorado Secretary of State, 303-894-2251
1700 Broadway, Denver CO 80290
secretary@sos.state.co.us
Connecticut Secretary of State, 203-566-3216
Secretary of the State
PO Box 150470
Hartford, CT 06115-0470
sots.webmaster@ct.gov
Delaware Secretary of State302-739-4111
District of Columbia Secretary of State, 202-727-7278
Office of the Secretary
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room 419
Washington, DC 20004 (202) 727-6306
Florida Secretary of State, 904-488-9000
secretaryofstate@dos.state.fl.us
Georgia Secretary of State, 404-656-2817
214 State Capitol
Atlanta, GA 30334
Guam Government Site
Hawaii Secretary of State, 808-586-2727
The Honorable Brian Schatz
Lieutenant Governor, State of Hawai`i
State Capitol
Honolulu, Hawai`i 96813
Phone:(808) 586-0255
Fax: (808) 586-0231
Email: brian.schatz@hawaii.gov
Idaho Secretary of State, 208-334-2300
Illinois Secretary of State, 217-782-7880
Jesse White
213 State Capitol
Springfield, IL 62756
Indiana Secretary of State, 317-232-6576
E-mail: constituent@sos.IN.gov
Address:
200 W. Washington St., Room 201
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Iowa Secretary of State, 515-281-5204
sos@sos.state.ia.us
1007 East Grand Avenue
Room 105, State Capitol
Des Moines, IA 50319
Kansas Secretary of State, 913-296-2236
sos@sos.ks.gov
Kansas Secretary of State
Memorial Hall, 1st Floor
120 SW 10th Avenue
Topeka, KS 66612-1594
(785) 296-4564
Kentucky Secretary of State, 502-564-2848
Louisiana Secretary of State, 504-925-4704
Maine Secretary of State, 207-287-3676
Maryland Secretary of State, 410-225-1330
Massachusetts Secretary of State, 617-727-9640
Michigan Secretary of State, 517-334-6206
Minnesota Secretary of State, 612-296-2803 business.services@state.mn.us
Mississippi Secretary of State, 601-359-1333
Missouri Secretary of State, 314-751-1310
Montana Secretary of State, 406-444-3665
Nebraska Secretary of State, 402-471-4079
Nevada Secretary of State, 702-687-5203
Secretary of State
Nevada State Capitol Building
101 North Carson Street, Suite 3
Carson City, NV 89701
Phone: 775-684-5708
FAX: 775-684-5725*
Email: sosmail@sos.nv.gov
New Hampshire Secretary of State, 603-271-3242
New Jersey Secretary of State, 609-530-6400
New Mexico Secretary of State, 505-827-4508
New York Secretary of State, 518-474-4752
North Carolina Secretary of State, 919-733-4201
North Dakota Secretary of State, 701-328-4284
Ohio Secretary of State, 614-466-3910
Oklahoma Secretary of State, 405-521-3911
Oregon Secretary of State, 503-986-2200
Pennsylvania Secretary of State, 717-787-1057
Puerto Rico Secretary of State, 787-722-2121
Rhode Island Secretary of State, 401-277-2357
South Carolina Secretary of State, 803-734-2158
South Dakota Secretary of State, 605-773-4845
Tennessee Secretary of State615-741-2286
Texas Secretary of State, 512-463-5555
Utah Secretary of State, 801-530-4849
Vermont Secretary of State, 802-828-2386
Virgin Islands Secretary of State, 340-776-8515
Virginia Secretary of State, 804-371-9141
Washington Secretary of State, 360-725-0377
West Virginia Secretary of State, 304-558-8000
Wisconsin Secretary of State, 608-266-3590
Wyoming Secretary of State, 307-777-7311
In addition to fees and taxes, they can impose regulatory mandates that can be far more costly than the fees and taxes. Failure to spend the big bucks to comply will also get you slapped with huge fines. Fees and taxes are just the tip of the iceberg when dealing with the EPA.
For such a great self proclaimed democracy as the USA it would appear that a presedential veto turns you into an autocracy. No such problems in the UK. I would be worried about that if I were you guys, if he can veto what he likes , what can he start if he likes, WW111? Doesn’t seem right.
Greg Holmes says:
March 10, 2011 at 9:02 am
Your concerns are valid, however, we aren’t supposed to be living in a “democracy”. This was made clear very early on:
“At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: “Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” “A republic, if you can keep it” responded Franklin.”
A “democracy” is something many of us have been fighting for a long time. Contrary to popular belief, a “democracy” isn’t what it’s all cracked up to be–a republic is the optimum form of government.
Brian H says:
The House Repubs have said they’ll attach restrictions to every funding bill they put through, so the Senate and WH will be forced to reject everything if they want the EPA and HC etc. to carry on carrying on. That’s where the House’s funding authority rubber meets the road.
Nice sentiment, if they have (and maintain) the will to stick to it. Past actions would seem to indicate otherwise. Watch how quickly they cave once the media starts harping about the Evil Republicans shutting down government because they aren’t getting their way.
I can’t imagine a worse decision than this, further evidence that part of the US Congress is firmly planted in the past and unable to foresee easily forecastable events.We deserve much better.
RE: BC CARBON TAXES ON FOSSILS FUELS
RE: THE BC COMMUNIST MANIFESTO
In NA, BC is the first jurisidiction to levy hefty carbon taxes on fossil fuels. Here are the current rates based upon a tax of $20 per tonne of CO2 equivalent as of July 1, 2010:
Gasoline 4.45 ¢/litre
Diesel 5.11
Jet Fuel 5.22
Propane 3.08
Natural Gas 3.80 ¢/cubic metre
Coal, high heat value 41.54 $/tonne
Coal, low heat value 35.54 $/tonne
Note the apparent low tax rate on nat gas. The actual tax is $0.9932 per gigajoule of BC nat gas which costs $4.568 per gigajoule. That is tax rate of 21.7%
On July 1, 2012 the the carbon tax will increase to $30 per tonne of CO2 equivalent.
There are no free passes on fossil fuel carbon taxes although low income wager earners receive a carbon tax rebate. For industry and commerce there are complex rules and regulations for computing and paying carbon taxes.
If a government can levy taxes on fossil fuels and control the emission of GHG’s, that goverment can:
1. Sieze control of the means of productions of goods and services.
2. Control of the production of goods and services.
3. Redistribute wealth.
4. Control of every aspect of the lives and affairs of the people.
You can view and download the BC Communist Manifesto from:
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/cas/cap.html#cap
ATTN: AMERICAN YANKEES
PLEASE FORWARD THIS COMMENT BY EMAIL AND FAX TO YOUR MEMBERS OF THE US CONGRESS AND STATE LEGISLATURES.
ATTN: AUSTRALIANS AND NEW ZEALANDERS
PLEASE FORWARD THIS COMMENT BY EMAIL AND FAX TO YOUR ELECTED MEMBERS OF THE VARIOUS LEVELS GOVERNMENT
Once the People understand the true intent of the UN and its front orgainzation the IPCC, the People with scythes, pitchforks and torches will be in the streets demanding a purge of the Communists from their governments.
“4:02pm EST
By Timothy Gardner
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A bill to stop the Environmental Protection Agency’s greenhouse gas rules passed a first step in the Republican-led House of Representatives on Thursday.
The House Energy and Commerce subcommittee passed the bill by voice vote that would block the EPA from regulating big carbon dioxide polluters such as oil refineries and power plants. The measure will next be sent to the full House Energy and Commerce Committee.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/10/house-gop-epa-climate-bill_n_834256.html
Next, States to declare CO2 a non pollutant and tell the Feds’ EPA to shove it. What would the EPA do?
Anthony,
It could be very instructive if some friends of this site looked at the actual Endangerment Finding of US EPA as published in the Federal Register here:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/Federal_Register-EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171-Dec.15-09.pdf
I suggest that you readers start with the Introduction Overview that cites the different claims about the impact of GHG on Major heat waves, hurricanes, allergenic responses etc. that support the Administrator’s decision. It reads like an Al Gore novel. Many of these claims have already been debunked by peer literature. Readers of WUWT could effectively inform Congress on why the substance of the basis for the Endangerment Finding are misleading and sourced to entities like the IPPC (which is cited).
The above link is a stand-alone amusement piece if the impact were not so serious. It does not cite any independent EPA documentation. It shows this finding was made on the basis of the drama of this issue rather than facts.
ge0050
Here is an example of how carbon dioxide taxes will cripple Australian Industry.
The following is from the Morningstar “Your Money Weekly” journal dated last Friday.
Ian Huntley comments:
Consider our BlueScope analyst, Mathew Hodge’s comments on the carbon tax proposals: “The imposition of a carbon tax without adequate compensation for Australian steel makers places the industry at risk. Steel is already one of the most competitive businesses in the world. Margins are razor thin and Australian companies are just hanging on through what are very difficult times. BlueScope’s Port Kembla steel works were loss making in 1H11. There is no substitute for coking coal – carbon – in the production of new steel. Every tonne of steel requires about 0.8t of coal which translates to nearly 2t of carbon dioxide. A modest $25/t carbon tax adds $50/t to steel making costs. Even in the heady days of the pre-GFC boom, BSL’s EBIT margins were less than $200/t and we don’t expect them to recover to anything like that in the future. A carbon tax will take a huge bite out of Australian steel profits for questionable environmental benefit. Placing an additional tax on Australian steel while allowing imports to avoid it will see steel making moved offshore to countries with less stringent laws. It makes no sense to ship coal and iron ore to China only to have it return as steel. If anything, carbon emissions will go up under this scenario. Hopefully common sense will prevail. ”
END QUOTE
The reference follows, but it is behind a paywall, as subscriptions are their only source of funds for the journal.
http://www.morningstar.com.au/Stocks/YMW/20110303/Overview
Maybe Rep. Upton can also introduce a bill to reverse the ban on incandescent light bulbs, since he was one of the original sponsors of the bill that created the ban. That might restore some of his credibility.
ATTN AussieDan
In BC, fossil fuels are not taxed if they are used as chemical reactant for various proceses, for example smelting metals where coke is used as a reductant. Fossil fuels used for preparing carbon electrodes for aluminium production are not taxed. Certain lubricating liquids and greases prepared from petroleum are also not taxed.
The ban on CFL should be lifted because their use is restricted to dry (ie indoor) enviroments. For example, the CFL can not be used in a car port if it will be exposed to moist air. I wouldn’t want to use one in the bathroom where there is high humidity from showers.
If you live really cold enviroments such as the northern great plains. Alaska, Siberia etc where the temps can drop to -30 deg or lower, CFL won’t start up.
How would you like to buy an illuminated heat globe for small space heating applications like for Easy Bake ovens?
Hugh Pepper says:
March 10, 2011 at 12:18 pm
I can’t imagine a worse decision than this, further evidence that part of the US Congress is firmly planted in the past and unable to foresee easily forecastable events.We deserve much better.
Yes, except that the part firmly rooted in the past are the Dimocrats, who seem to want to bring us back to the stone age, energy-wise. With their Greenie goggles on (apparently, you have a pair, too), and kool-aid fogged brains, they cannot see the disasterous effects that forcing up energy costs will do. Yes, we do deserve much better than what they, and the power-mad EPA are trying to do. That is one reason Republicans were elected, and will continue to be.