Move Afoot in the Senate to Can EPA CO2 Regs
The Murkowski resolution addresses a basic conflict of interest that Sen. Boxer prefers to sweep under the rug. Under the Clean Air Act, the agency that makes the findings that trigger regulatory action is the same agency that does the regulating. Since regulatory agencies exist to regulate, they have a vested interest in reaching “scientific” conclusions that expand the scope and scale of their power.
Up to now, this ethically flawed situation has been tolerable because Congress has clearly specified the types of substances over which EPA has regulatory authority – those that degrade air quality, those that pose acute risks of toxicity, or those that deplete the ozone layer. But when Congress enacted and amended the Clean Air Act, it never intended for EPA to control greenhouse gases for climate change purposes.
Yes, it is possible, by torturing the text of the Clean Air Act as the Supreme Court did in Massachusetts v. EPA, to infer congressional authority for greenhouse gas regulation. But the fact remains that Congress did not design the Clean Air Act to be a framework for climate policy, has never voted for the Act to be used as such a framework, and has never signed off on the regulatory cascade that EPA’s endangerment finding, if allowed to stand, will ineluctably trigger.
According to the Washington Post, Boxer stated that if the public has to wait for Congress to pass legislation to control greenhouse gas emissions, “that might not happen, in a year or two, or five or six or eight or 10.” Yes, but that’s democracy. And the democratic process is more valuable than any result that EPA might obtain by doing an end run around it.
Since the Progressive Era, our country has increasingly lived under a constitutionally dubious system of regulation without representation. Regulations have the force and effect of law, and many function as implicit taxes. Article I of the Constitution vests all legislative powers, such as the power to tax, in Congress. For decades, however, Congress has enacted statutes that delegate legislative power to agencies that are not accountable to the people at the ballot box. Constitutionally, the only saving grace is that the regulations implement policies clearly authorized in the controlling statute.
But the regulatory cascade that will ensue from EPA’s endangerment finding has no clear congressional authorization. Indeed, regulations emanating from the endangerment finding are likely to be more costly and intrusive than any climate bill Congress has considered and either rejected or failed to pass.
We are on the brink of an era of runaway regulation without representation. Sen. Boxer complains that the Murkowski resolution is “unprecedented.” But that is only fitting, because the resolution addresses an unprecedented threat to our system of self-government.
As a Californian, let me loudly praise this effort to rein in the abusive overreach of the EPA, and add my sincere hope that Sen. Boxer is serving out her final term as our representative in DC. I plan to invest significant time and money to support her opponent in November.
Well now isn’t that interesting that it is these 3 dems (Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana) that are supporting this bill…
I wonder why…. Politicians with no ethics or conscious make me puke… but I’ll give them one thing, they are transparent….lol
NO REGULATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!
oh, wait… sounds familiar (just in case anyone missed it)
Tom Stauffer:
Echo. I’m another disgusted Californian who intends to work hard to dump Boxer. EPA regulations like this will go further to destroy our state.
I just hope Murkowski gets those other seven votes. Who are the most likely tippers?
Serious effort should be focused on reducing the EPA’s power. While no one wants dirty water or air, this nonsensical ruling on CO2 is as bizzare as it is Draconian. The imposition of this finding undercuts our ability to be competitive in the global marketplace. It also very conveniently ignores the recent “Climategate” scandal that revealed widespread falsification and manipulation of climate data, rendering most, if not all climate science suspect. Instead of new regulations the EPA needs to reconsider every rule put in place to combat “climate change” and begin to rescind them.
Our own government is actively working against the best interests of its citizenry. This is not what we voted for.
It would be a great move for Scott Brown to throw his support behind Murkowski’s resolution. Reversing the EPA’s overreach seems like a tailor-made issue for him and The Whole World is watching for his next move.
if we could only regulate co2 production from liberal politicians. would they be death panels?
Want an example of where this EPA power will lead. Recently the California Air Resources Board (CARB) with a similar “mandate” placed expensive and suffocating retrofit requirements on diesel equipment based on a report from a single consultant who faked his PHD and has virtually no expertise on the subject. It also turned out that the projection of “3500 premature deaths due to PM2.5 particles” was bogus – based on bad modeling, using 20 year-old data collected elsewhere in the country.
At KFI640, an LA talk radio show, callers from businesses using diesel equipment lined up to tell horror stories of the affect of this heavy handed policy. Construction companies with equipment bought and paid for are having a difficult time right now. So the State’s idea is to saddle them with the additional costs of retrofit – in many cases engine replacements that can cost up to $90,000 each. One such owner was despondent as he announced he was shutting down, laying off 250 people and moving operations to Arizona. Mary Nichols, the unelected head of CARB and a former bureaucrat in ex-governor Jerry Brown’s administration is unmoved. She said that the fake consultant and fraudulent report don’t matter and called it all “an annoying distraction”.
As goes California – so goes the Nation!
http://www.lakeportchamber.com/news/details.asp?id=66
Here’s wishing her good luck in this effort. I believe that the Massachusetts election last week will influence many in the Democrat party to have a change of heart if only to try to salvage their position in congress.
Even if they do vote with Murkowski and manage to reverse the EPA we still need to vote them out just for the past actions that they took because if they were to get reelected they would probably feel comfortable going back to their same old selves!
Murkowski, Nelson, Lincoln, Landrieu, all feeling heat from the right. THe last three in particular are now trying to obscure the fact that they were available for purchase for HC reform bill…
NEVER forget what Nelson did, and Landrieu too, and Lincoln just for voting in favor of HC reform.. NEVER FORGET, in spite of what they’ll try really hard to do over the next several months to establish right-leaning credentials.
DON”T FORGET WHO THEY ARE. Their actions pre-Jan. 19th tell the whole truth.
Now we find out:
Our EPA and other left loony windbags want to control our water resources and the billions of dollars it can generate in the production of food or business.
Marlo – I think your most important comment here is the following:
“Since the Progressive Era, our country has increasingly lived under a constitutionally dubious system of regulation without representation. Regulations have the force and effect of law, and many function as implicit taxes. Article I of the Constitution vests all legislative powers, such as the power to tax, in Congress.”
In my opinion, this whole regulatory structure is plain unconstitutional irrespective of what any court says. By creating the current regulatory structure, Congress has abdicated its legislative function and has allowed the Executive Branch to engage in de facto legislation through rule making. Indeed, the Executive Branch now seems to be dictating legislation. How so? The EPA said it was taking the action on CO2 because Congress had not passed cap and trade. The clear implication is: pass cap and trade or else will go the regulatory route.
The EPA ruling is the result of a little boy throwing a tantrum because he cannot have his way in all things. He is going to show us that he is in charge and in control. He is cracking the whip and, by God, we better respond.
Scott Brown, this job has your name written all over it. Show the nation what it is to be presidential.
I should know this, but…
If 51 Senate votes do come in to support this bill, does it need to go to the House and then get Obama’s signature? And can Obama veto the bill and then 2/3rds of the Senate and House have to vote for the bill to over-ride Obama’s veto?
In any case, it sounds like now’s the time to hammer the Dem politicians in the heavily fossil fuel-producing and and consuming industrial/commercial states to get them to go support this bill. I can also imagine that now that the SCOTUS has allowed corporations and unions to contribute/produce ads against specific legislation, you might see a “perfect storm” of corporate and labor interests align against the EPA.
California voters are already thinking out of the boxer.
Well, this is good news. Wish we could go a step further and abolish the EPA altogether.
The EPA is Obambi’s mouthpiece. He is trying to use the EPA as a club to get Cap and tax implemented. Let’s hope that [in fact let's pray] Sen. Lisa Murkowski is successful.
I just hope Murkowski gets those other seven votes. Who are the most likely tippers?
Those standing for re-election in 10 months.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2010
18 are Democrats.
Jerry from Boston, that depends;
http://www.c-span.org/guide/congress/glossary/sensesen.htm
The Senate can send a message with a sense of the Senate vote. It isn’t law so it can’t be vetoed or enforced. It’s the Senate version of a shot across the bow. That is important because of this;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate
{snipped}
“The Senate has several exclusive powers not granted to the House, including consenting to treaties as a precondition to their ratification and consenting or confirmation of appointments of Cabinet secretaries, federal judges, other federal executive officials, military officers and other federal uniformed officers, as well as the impeachment trials of federal officials.”
So a ‘sense of the Senate’ bill is a warning that if you don’t pay attention we will shut you down.
Not sure that would work in this case. No one is scared of a toothless dog, which is what the Republicans are. Maybe an underfed pygmy Elephant.
Anyway, a sense of the Senate message will be ignored, since the Senate will not back it up with putting a hold on any of the Administration’s appointments, which is the most common action. If there are enough Senators that want it, they can make sure there are no raises at the EPA. No raises means your best employees will be transferring to Labor, DoE, or someplace where they have a future. Not sure about new hires.
The Bureaucrat on top at the EPA is playing with fire.
http://blog.epa.gov/administrator/bio/
Pissing off the Senator that decides your budget is a stooooopid as stupid gets. Reading her bio, it looks like Corzine was her ‘rabi’. He was in charge of directing and advancing her career. Corzine is history, he was slaughtered by a Republican last fall in New Jersey, of all places.
So either Jackson thinks she has a new ‘rabi’ powerful enough to protect her from a Senator or group of Senators, or she has cracked under the strain. Remember any regulation made by the EPA will have to be defended in an Administrative Law court and then again at election time. While bureaucrats can get away with a lot in D.C, urinating in the Congressional punch bowl isn’t a wise move.
I’m hoping that something this outrageous will alow Congress to re-vist the Environmantal Protection Act. IIRC, it was passed back in the 60′s. Technology has changed some of the baselines since then. It might be a good issue for Republicans. How many jobs has the EPA cost the US Economy? Millions? Thousand? dozens? Let’s find out and then let the voters decide if it’s worth it. How many humans need to die to save 3 fish?
Isn’t ironic Senator Boxer is represents a state that is requiring
regulation(replacement) of diesel engines, (PM10) and forced installing Emhanced Vapor Recovery, that has and will cost billions to be spent for no measurable improvement in the air our kids breath. A state that has the worst business climate of 48 states and one of the highest unemployment and small business bankruptcies in the U S. It is so sad our govinator is clueless to there “Is No Free Lunch” and the impact of “unintended consequences” rules.
The Director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy, Carol Browner, agrees with rejected claims that e-mails stolen from a British university showed that climate scientists trumped up global warming numbers, saying she considered the science settled.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/25/climate-czar-says-e-mails-dont-change-anything/
“I’m sticking with the 2,500 scientists. These people have been studying this issue for a very long time and agree this problem is real,” said Ms. Browner.
She is a former legislative Director for Al Gore, EPA Administrator under Bill Clinton and a founding member of the Albright Group and Albright Capital Management. The firm assists businesses and other organizations with operating internationally, including the challenges of complying with environmental regulations and climate change.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albright_Capital_Management
This is a matter of public record and I am not suggesting that there is any conflict of interest between her involvement with the company and her current government position as “Energy Czar.”
,