Posts Tagged ‘EPA and climate’

Senate GOP ready to take on the EPA

Monday, November 10th, 2014

Source: Hotair

Watson, the game's afoot.

Watson, the game’s afoot.

The writing should be on the wall for this one, particularly since the Democrats have essentially lost coal country entirely, as Ed pointed out this weekend. Energy – and the millions of jobs associated with it – was featured on the campaign trail and proved a winning issue for Republicans. And now, as reported by The Hill, the new GOP majority in the Senate is gearing up to finally do more than just talk about it.

The GOP sees the midterm elections as a mandate to roll back rules from the Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies, with Republicans citing regulatory costs they say cripple the economy and skepticism about the cause of climate change. (more…)

Lisa Jackson Leaving EPA and Path of Economic Destruction

Thursday, January 3rd, 2013

Source:  Washington Times  

By Steve Goreham

Lisa Jackson, President Obama’s chief of the Environmental Protection Agency, resigned last week. For four years she led our nation down a regulatory path of economic destruction unmatched in the 40-year history of the EPA. New regulations from Ms. Jackson’s reign of terror impact power plants, industrial plants, refineries, and vehicles, as well as the cost of almost all goods and services. Unless her policies are rolled back, Americans will pay for decades with higher energy prices, job losses, and economic stagnation in exchange for negligible environmental benefits.

In January 2008 during his first presidential campaign, President Obama stated “So if somebody wants to build a coal-fired plant they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.” When cap-and-trade legislation failed in Congress in 2010, Ms. Jackson became Obama’s instrument to destroy the US coal-fired utility industry.

President Obama and Lisa Jackson put faith in Climatism, the belief that man-made greenhouse gases are destroying the planet. They trust NASA scientist James Hansen, who has characterized coal plants as “factories of death.” Therefore, any and all means must be used to eliminate coal plants and other greenhouse gas sources. (more…)

EPA administrators invent excuses to avoid transparency

Saturday, December 1st, 2012

Source:  Examiner

by Chris Horner

The Environmental Protection Agency is the latest Obama bureaucracy exposed for embarrassing efforts to avert transparency. Its administrator, Lisa Jackson, has been using the email alias “Richard Windsor” to conduct agency business, which might allow some policy conversations to avoid scrutiny and circumvent public records laws.

So far, the EPA has offered a two-part defense of such accounts, first revealed in my new book, “The Liberal War on Transparency.” First, everybody does it: “For more than a decade, EPA administrators have been assigned two official, government-issued email accounts: a public account and an internal account.” Second, the masses made us do it: the overwhelming volume of mail an administrator would receive from the public meant she needed an account she would actually read and write from.

Both excuses, though slight on detail, prove too much. (more…)

GOP needs to start talking about EPA reform now

Wednesday, September 19th, 2012

Source:  Washington Times

The EPA Hydra

OPINION

One issue that has been noticeably absent from the Republican platform this election season is any discussion of the Obama Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It didn’t even come up at the Republican National Convention a couple of weeks ago. If the omission was an oversight, it was a big one. If it was intentional, it’s cause for concern. (more…)

Is the EPA Endangering Public Health and Welfare by Attempting to Mitigate Extreme Weather?

Tuesday, April 10th, 2012

Source:  MasterResource

by Chip Knappenberger

On the rationale of mitigating man-made climate change and thus limiting the occurrence of extreme weather events, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is (unintentionally) fostering a less prepared and less resilient population. As such, EPA should regulate its own actions as endangering public health and welfare.

New Proposed Rule

Back in December 2009, the U.S. EPA issued a finding that human emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) “threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.” This “Endangerment Finding” opened the door to the EPA’s issuing regulations aimed at restricting GHG emissions in the U.S. To date, the EPA hasn’t been shy about stepping through that door.

The latest in a string of EPA greenhouse gas regulations was announced just last month. This one is aimed at carbon dioxide emissions from new power plants. The proposed regulation would limit CO2 emissions to 1,000 pounds per megawatt-hour of power produced, which is not achievable by coal plants under current or near-term technology. It is congruent to what a new gas-fired power plant can achieve–and thus the standard.

So if this proposal were adopted, it would effectively eliminate the construction of all new coal-fired power plants in the U.S. (more…)

House GOP spending bill prohibits funding for EPA climate regs

Saturday, February 12th, 2011

Source:  The Hill

By Andrew Restuccia - 02/11/11 07:33 PM ET

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. (more…)

“EPA Expands Climate Agenda to the Current Fleet of Power Plants and Refineries” — VanNess Feldman

Friday, January 21st, 2011

Source:  Global Warming.org

by Marlo Lewis

On December 23, 2010, one day before the Yuletide season when Members of Congress, the media, and Tea Party activists are least likely to watchdog the federal bureaucracy, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced rulemakings to establish New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from power plants and refineries. Or maybe “whispered” would be more accurate.

If you didn’t read the text of EPA’s press release and just skimmed the headline, you would not know the agency had just launched the next phase of its greenhouse gas regulatory program. The release carried this bland and uninformative title:  ”EPA to Set Modest Pace for Greenhouse Gas Standards/Agency stresses flexibility and public input in developing cost-effective and protective GHG standards for largest emitters.” (more…)

AFP Releases Paper Detailing How EPA Could Force Cap-and-Trade

Tuesday, October 26th, 2010

Source: AFP

- Agency move toward trading program expands executive power at the expense of democratic representation -

WASHINGTON, DC—The free market grassroots group Americans for Prosperity (AFP) today released a working paper engaging the debate over whether the EPA can use the Clean Air Act to enact a cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gases (GHGs). The paper—entitled: Of Elephants and Mouseholes: How EPA Could Revive Cap-and-Trade—examines the statutory structure of the Clean Air Act and identifies two existing programs that EPA could contort to enact a GHG cap-and-trade program. The paper also includes a discussion of how cap-and-trade allows the EPA’s regulations to reach much further and accomplish more expansive goals than the Clean Air Act was ever designed to cover. The paper is online here. (more…)

EPA to Require 62 MPG Car

Monday, October 4th, 2010

Source:  Uncoverage

Will this meet the standard???

Will this meet the standard???

The Obama Environmental (Expansion of) Protection Agency has already pushed itself where no EPA has gone before.  Last December, the agency summarily ruled itself able  “by memorandum” (without a vote of Congress) to consider carbon dioxide a pollutant to be regulated.

In what has now become a sneaky signature of this administration, the “Friday night document dump,” we learn that this week, there more two more shockers out of EPA.

Los Angeles Times:

Working with the California board, the Obama administration has developed “scenarios” (not “rules”….yet) to decrease greenhouse emissions from cars by 3% to 6% annually starting in 2017.

In terms of fuel economy, that would mean new cars would have to get on average 47 to 62 mpg by 2025. The agencies estimated that such improvements would add about $800 to $3,500 to the cost of a car but that owners would reap “lifetime savings due to reduced fuel costs of about $5,000 to over $7,000.”

Car industry representatives vigorously dispute such estimates, contending that the calculations the Obama administration made were based on faulty assumptions about costs of technology and manufacturing.

“Less than five months ago, the administration issued the most expensive fuel economy mandates ever, estimated to cost industry and consumers over $50 billion,” the National Automobile Dealers Assn. said in a statement.

“Now, before the ink has barely dried on those as yet unimplemented rules, the U.S. Department of Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency and the State of California have decided to launch a new and far more costly set of fuel economy mandates that would require light-duty cars and trucks to achieve up to 62 mpg on average by 2025.” (more…)

Quote of the week

Friday, July 16th, 2010

Source:  Huffington Post

Click here: Michael Kieschnick: What Next After the Impending Collapse of Climate Change Legislation?

We finally have an EPA which is run by people who care about the environment and has not yet been hamstrung by Congress (as was the Clinton EPA after New Gingrich took over the House). The EPA is hard at work – though years behind due to the Bush Administration – in regulating some of the worse side effects of burning coal, such as hazardous coal ash and mercury emissions. (more…)