*EPA's Historic Decision: *The Wall Street Journal is not happy with the
agency's outrageous power grab
<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703558004574582284174773944.html>.
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said yesterday that her ruling that
greenhouses gases are dangerous pollutants would "cement 2009's
place in history" as the moment when the U.S. began "seizing the
opportunity of clean-energy reform." She's right that this is an
historic decision, though not to her or the White House's credit,
and "seizing" is the right term. President Obama isn't about to let
a trifle like democratic consent impede his climate agenda.
With cap and trade blown apart in the Senate, the White House has
chosen to impose taxes and regulation across the entire economy
under clean-air laws that were written decades ago and were never
meant to apply to carbon. With this doomsday machine activated, Mr.
Obama hopes to accomplish what persuasion and debate among his own
party manifestly cannot.
In short, having lost the legislative fight, the Obama administration is
now making an enormous power grab. They are claiming the right to
impose drastic regulations on the entire economy, even though a Congress
controlled by their own party has so far refused to give them that
authority.
Even if you believe wholeheartedly in the arguments from global warming
alarmists, you should oppose this power grab. EPA regulations are
probably the worst way to cut down emissions of greenhouse gases, both
economically and politically.
(This decision makes me think dark thoughts about closing EPA,
demolishing its headquarters building, and sowing salt into the grounds,
just to make a point.)
- 6:38 AM, 8 December 2009
*Iain Murray has some* details
<http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmE3MzE2MTEzYjVjOGNlZDRmOWQzM2I4NGY0Y2JiMWI=>
on the decision, including this one:
The problem is that the president can't get off the train where he
wants. He simply can't stop what he has started. Under the
statutory language of the Clean Air Act, the regulation of mobile
sources tripwires regulations for all stationary sources that emit
more than 250 tons of a designated pollutant. For greenhouse gases,
that's pretty much everything larger than a Gore-sized mansion.
These stationary sources would have to get a Prevention of
Significant Deterioration permit for any significant modification,
as would any new source. They would also have to get operating
permits. *The upshot is that millions of buildings would be subject
to regulations.* Small businesses will similarly be affected, as
millions of businesses emit that amount of greenhouse gases.
Fast-food franchises, apartment blocks, hospitals --- you name it
--- will find themselves subject to EPA bureaucracy.
(Emphasis added.)
Lawyers and would-be bureaucrats will be delighted by the work that will
come their way; the economy, especially manufacturing, will suffer.
- 9:25 AM, 8 December 2009 [link]
<http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/December2009_1.html#jrm8183>
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
