Post by Ryan Maue
EPA Deputy Administrator Mathy Stanislaus should be given credit for showing up Thursday to an Environment and Energy subcommittee hearing, but may not be returning any time soon. Let’s just say his performance was cringe-inducing as he spun like a top attempting to deflect the very pointed, and basic yes-or-no questions of Rep. Cory Gardner (R – Colorado). An exasperated Stanislaus even resorted to a face-palm maneuver to regain his rhetorical footing. Of course, YouTube video exists…see below.
It’s clear that the GOP wants to eliminate the EPA’s current attempt/ability to regulate greenhouse gases (CO2) and, here, coal-ash, and is using its newly acquired power in the House to call hearings, demand/compel Obama administration officials to testify, and expose the job-killing nature of the EPA’s regulations. In other words, this is how politics works. The liberal media’s lack of coverage of this “inconsistency” in word versus deed with the Obama EPA demonstrates how in-the-tank the media is for the ’12 re-election. Ideology is more important than jobs.
Right wing outlets are hyping the performance of the EPA deputy as a victory and tacit admission that the EPA greenhouse regulations will kill (civility alert!) jobs. From the DAILY CALLER:
“We have not directly taken a look at jobs in the proposal,” Stanislaus said, referring to a regulation that would govern industries that recycle coal ash and other fossil fuel byproducts.
Coal ash is commonly used to make concrete stronger and longer lasting, make wallboard more durable and improve the quality of roofing shingles…
Gardner pressed Stanislaus as to whether or not EPA had done a direct economic analysis on how the rule would affect jobs, to which Stanislaus replied saying that EPA had not included jobs in its cost-benefit analysis of the rule.
“Do you feel an economic analysis that does not include the complete picture on jobs, is that a full economic analysis?” Gardner asked. “I think it is really a yes or no question.
“To me, I don’t see how you can talk about economic analysis without talking about jobs… and you said that you would not promulgate a rule where the costs would exceed the benefits,” Gardner continued. “But if you are not taking into account jobs, I don’t see how that goes.”
Gardner’s line of questioning had Stanislaus visibly dumbfounded, and he repeatedly told the congressman he would have to get back to him with the answers to his questions.
“I’d like to see a list of all of the rules that you have proposed that haven’t taken into account jobs,” Gardner said. “We need to know if the EPA considers jobs in their analysis and whether you have, and whether EPA’s position is to consider jobs when it does an economic analysis.”
Stanislaus then replied saying EPA considers jobs in all of its economic analysis, but that the form of the analysis is driven by the requirements rules that are under consideration.
The EPA official’s testimony has generated negative reactions from pro-business advocates who say Stanislaus’s testimony shows the agency is out of touch with reality and is indifferent to job creation.
The painful testimony reaches a crescendo at the 3:00 minute mark, when the EPA bureaucrat appears to be looking for an exit. At least Stanislaus showed up. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson is unavailable for testimony with a fully booked schedule, including her speech Saturday night at the Socialist Youth Climate Conference in Washington D.C. From POLITICO:
House Republicans aren’t happy that top EPA officials are skipping hearings on efforts to roll back the agency’s regulations.
“We could call them the Evaporating Personnel Administration, I guess,” Texas Republican Rep. Joe Barton said Friday. “They don’t seem to ever show up and be accountable.”
“I do find it troubling once again that Lisa Jackson once again is a no show at a very important hearing that she’s had every opportunity to be in attendance,” Barton said. “The MACT truck is about to run us over all and she’s not even here to comment on those regulations.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
As a constituent of Rep. Gardner, I sent him an email thanking him and asking him to pursue Lisa Jackson and the EPA for greater accountability, instead of letting them off so easy. Thanks to the other commenters here for their insights…
Kadaska, TomVonk:
Which regulation?
This one?
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/RuleGate.nsf/byRIN/2050-AE81?opendocument
or some other one?
Is it one that says you can’t legally dump coal ash into my drinking water? Or one that says you can’t use it at all?
My point is the article makes a reference to WHAT is being regulated, but not the regulation being proposed. As a group most of you seem to be up in arms that the EPA didn’t look at the direct job consequences of this bill. If the bill covers dumping coal in your drinking water, do you really care about the direct job consequences? If you’re going to talk politics first and foremost I find it’s best to read the actual bill that’s being proposed so you can know what is being talked about.
I’ve read some of the bill that I linked above (again I have NO idea if that’s the correct proposed regulation) and it actually sounds like sound smart legislation for what amounts to dumping toxic waste into a landfill.
The problem that I see is that based on the information available no one in this discussion has any idea what the EPA is even proposing and I’m only guessing that I’ve got the correct legislation.
Todd D
Well, I don’t know which specific regulation it is either, but… Why does the EPA have to regulate what they are calling a “non-hazardous waste” which is what they called it in your link?
From Todd D on April 18, 2011 at 11:07 am:
Follow the link to the original Daily Caller article:
Googling on “epa Resources and Recovery Act RCRA” leads to this:
There is found the RCRA Online link. Searching for “regulatory impact analysis” yields this page on RIA’s. And also an interesting point is found.
You had previously said:
From that EPA page:
You think the mentioned RIA included examining direct economic impact. EPA says they do not.
By the mentioned Executive Order, the EPA was to consider jobs. Gardner asked if they had conducted a direct economic analysis, which would consider jobs. This is as opposed to the RIA they had done, which would not look at jobs.
So basically, Gardner asked Stanislaus if the EPA had done their duty per the EO. And basically, Stanislaus said they had not. Looks clear to me.
Now as to your “point” about Ryan Maue not mentioning the specific proposal, which was not mentioned in the Daily Caller article anyway… First I’ll note that you can’t find it, yet you expect Ryan to be able to not only find it but to provide you that info.
Thankfully a simple Googling of “epa coal ash proposal” finds: Coal Combustion Residuals – Proposed Rule. Have fun.
Ryan Maue says:
April 18, 2011 at 12:24 am
Note: this was the comment of the day (April 17): very snarky and witty 🙂
evanmjones says:
April 17, 2011 at 7:26 am (Edit)
Socialist Youth Climate Conference
Redistribution of warmth?
———–
Indeed. Green is the new red…
Todd D says:
April 18, 2011 at 11:07 am
“…My point is the article makes a reference to WHAT is being regulated, but not the regulation being proposed. As a group most of you seem to be up in arms that the EPA didn’t look at the direct job consequences of this bill. If the bill covers dumping coal in your drinking water, do you really care about the direct job consequences? If you’re going to talk politics first and foremost I find it’s best to read the actual bill that’s being proposed so you can know what is being talked about.
I’ve read some of the bill that I linked above (again I have NO idea if that’s the correct proposed regulation) and it actually sounds like sound smart legislation for what amounts to dumping toxic waste into a landfill.
The problem that I see is that based on the information available no one in this discussion has any idea what the EPA is even proposing and I’m only guessing that I’ve got the correct legislation.”
__________________________
You don’t seem to grasp the distinction between regulation and legislation. The distinction is not that fine. I’ll spell it out: Congress writes legislation, EPA writes regulations. Legislation is voted on, regulations are not voted on. Congress created the EPA through legislation. The EPA regulates within the framework created by congress.
The problem is that the EPA has gotten too big for it’s britches (it’s congressional mandate), enabled by the courts. EPA has no mandate from congress to regulate CO2 because it is not a toxin, it is a nutrient. They want to regulate coal ash as a way to constipate the coal industry, thereby indirectly regulating CO2 without a congressional mandate.
Congress needs to hold EPA accountable for bad regulations and adverse economic impacts. The voters need to hold congress accountable for bad decision making.
Hey I have an idea, lets regulate dirt. It’s awfully dirty, and food grows in dirt. It must be dangerous. There must be a million ways to raise the cost of living if we only put our minds to it.
EPA needs to return to its origin of actually cleaning up the very real pollution that did occur in the past. EPA’s fundamental problem is that by its success it has diminished the need for itself. It must continually invent new things to regulate to keep itself in business? It really should regulate itself into a smaller and smaller role as it solves the problems it seeks to cure.
CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
—- REPLY Dena, that is exactly how this model of government is supposed to function! The EPA, as a federal agency with a seat on the Cabinet, reports only to the Executive branch (Obama).
Sir, in light of: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people., please tell me where the Constitution authorizes the EPA?
Not that it matters anymore:
David S says:
This is just one more example of the insanity we get into when government is allowed to ignore the constitution. …
If we the people don’t rein in these blatant violation of the constitution by federal agencies we will lose the constitution and all of our rights will go with it.
David, I think you may be using the wrong tense…
Speaking of the EPA, I actually came across an article today that I think you may or may not have seen already, but it sheds a pretty good light on the current situation with the EPA and the “Haze Plan” that some seem to be pushing. Either way, it just came out in the Albuquerque Journal and is ranked as one of the top current articles regarding the EPA, so I thought I’d share it with you nonetheless. If you’re up for a glance, here’s a link http://www.pressdisplay.com/pressdisplay/showlink.aspx?bookmarkid=93P42TS46AM&preview=article&linkid=a2c15c0c-b9ae-4983-afac-9715fc90ded9&pdaffid=ZVFwBG5jk4Kvl9OaBJc5%2bg%3d%3d
Have a good one!