by Steve Goreham, Washington Times CHICAGO, January 2, 2013— 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 Jackson’s reign of …
“EPA has broken every law and violated every standard established since World War II and the Tuskegee syphilis experiments for the protection of human subjects in scientific experiments,” said Milloy. “That EPA administrator Lisa Jackson permitted this heinous experimentation to occur under her watch shocks the conscience,” Milloy added.
In August 2011, Obama’s EPA imposed a cap and trade style program to expand existing limitations on sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from coal-fired power plants in 28 “upwind” states. They claimed that they had unlimited authority pursuant to the Clean Air Act to cap emissions that supposedly travel across state lines. The EPA admitted that the rule would cost $2.7 billion from the private sector and force many cole-fired power plants to shut down. Priorities USA might have even run an ad against Obama claiming that his superfluous regulations cause workers to lose their health insurance and die.
“As I have expressed publicly, and to you directly, I regret comments I made several years ago that do not in any way reflect my work as regional administrator,” he wrote. “As importantly, they do not represent the work you have overseen as EPA administrator.”
“I wonder when the Department of Labor will forbid parents from requiring children to make their beds, clean their rooms, or set the table for dinner.” – Ron Paul
Under pressure from farming advocates in rural communities, and following a report by The Daily Caller, the Obama administration withdrew a proposed rule Thursday that would have applied child labor laws to family farms.
Sen. James Inhofe is calling for an investigation into a top Environmental Protection Agency administrator who confessed that his “philosophy of enforcement” was to “crucify” and “make examples of” energy companies.
Since the 1980s the Greens have been telling everyone that carbon dioxide was causing global warming–now called climate change–and warning that CO2 emissions were going to kill everyone in the world if they weren’t dramatically reduced. The ball was put in motion with the United Nations 1997 Kyoto Protocols when many nations agreed to this absurd idea and carried forward by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ever since.
The EPA heaved its weight against another industry this month, issuing a regulation to sharply increase fuel economy. Under this new rule, America’s fleet of passenger cars and light trucks will have to meet an average of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, a doubling of today’s average of about 27 mpg. By the EPA’s estimate the rule will cost $157 billion, meaning the real number is vastly greater.
The proposed regulations would set greenhouse gas emission thresholds above which businesses must file for an EPA permit and complete extra paperwork in order to continue operating. If the EPA wins its court battle and fully rolls out the greenhouse gas regulations, the number of businesses forced into this regulatory regime would grow tremendously — from approximately 14,000 now to as many as 6.1 million.
Gina McCarthy, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, discusses the latest clean air regulation the EPA has proposed, as well as what’s coming up from the agency and the political reaction in Washington.
The EPA’s appeals board ruled that Shell had not taken into consideration emissions from an ice-breaking vessel when calculating overall greenhouse gas emissions from the project. Environmental groups were thrilled by the ruling.
USA Today WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court appeared ready to rule that federal judges cannot set limits on greenhouse gas emissions, after a majority of justices suggested Tuesday that such disputes over global warming are better left to Congress and federal regulators. Five power companies, including American Electric Power, are …
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.
The EPA employees 17,000 bureaucrats and everyone one of them emits approx. 1/2 ton of CO2 a year just by breathing. That adds up to only 8.5 tons of CO2, but if you add all the CO2 they emit commuting back and forth to work the EPA is responsible for way more than 25,000 tons of the deadly CO2 being ejected into the atmosphere every year. Of course if they did tax themselves for emitting CO2 the American people will be the ones that pay for it.
Proposed EPA mandates would serve as an unprecedented power grab over much of the U.S. economy and immediately impose costly new regulations leading to massive job losses and making U.S. businesses far less competitive in the world. Congress never gave the EPA the power to pursue these job-killing regulations.
After months of political gyrations and jawboning, both houses of Congress are expected to vote Wednesday on measures to limit, or block altogether, the ability of the US Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
WorldNetDaily New calculations applied to a U.S. Senate report reveal the Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to combat global warming through regulation of greenhouse gases would theoretically take over $700 trillion, seven times the world’s gross production, to drop the earth’s temperature only 1 degree Celsius. The report released last year …
The real problem here, though, isn’t how much money the EPA is receiving, but the authority that EPA has to regulate. If Republicans are looking to prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases, for instance, simply cutting funds isn’t enough.
Eleven Republican senators introduced a bill that would stop the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases, which scientists blame for global warming, without explicit approval by Congress.