• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Why Liberals Want the EPA to Regulate Carbon

    Two articles from Congressional Quarterly last week show why liberals are so desperate to have the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulate carbon under the authority of the Clean Air Act (CAA). First from “Democrats reject Bush’ Cost-Benefit Approach to Pollution Standards” we learn:

    Under the Clean Air Act, last overhauled in 1990, the EPA must set pollution standards based solely on public health and welfare.

    The law prohibits the EPA from taking cost into account when setting air quality standards, which must be at a level that science determines is necessary to protect the public. The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed this reading in its 2001 decision, Whitman v. American Trucking Associations.

    S. William Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Agencies, argued that health-based standards set without regard to cost are a fundamental part of the statute. “This is something that is untouchable. It is the foundation of the Clean Air Act,” Becker said.

    Now from “EPA Cost Analysis Fuels Debate Over Global Warming Bill” we learn that :

    The analysis found that if the bill were enacted, average annual household consumption would be $1,375 lower in 2030 and $4,377 lower in 2050. Electricity prices would go up 44 percent by 2030 and 26 percent by 2050.
    Under the bill, U.S. gross domestic product would be between 0.9 percent and 3.8 percent lower – or $238 billion to $983 billion less – in 2030 than if there is no legislation, the analysis found.

    Now let’s leave aside for a second that the EPA study grossly underestimates the costs of the Warner/Lieberman bill by, among other things, assuming liberals in Congress will sign off on a 150% increase in nuclear power by 2050. And let’s also set aside the fact that even if the United States meets the Warner/Lieberman carbon reduction there is no scientific consensus it will bring any environmental benefits to anyone. No the real story here is that by regulating carbon through the CAA, liberals never have to tell the American people what it is costing them economically. The EPA is forbidden, by law, from even considering what the costs to the economy might be. Working through Congress, on the other hand, means conservatives can demand studies on how carbon schemes will cost jobs and economic growth.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    One Response to Why Liberals Want the EPA to Regulate Carbon

    1. dave mcduffie says:

      Its simply amazing(and categorically wrong and costly!)how the left imposes its will on American taxpayers on the basis of a "THEORY"! Liberalism is dangerous to the survival of our country and "they" have already destroyed our culture, our language and our borders. The "vultures" are now just picking at the remains of what once was the only super-power. As liberals proclaim "we all must be equal", they have brought us down to a level unknown to the American people and in doing so have demoralized the greatest nation on earth. This slide is going to be so severe because of liberal policies there will be war in the streets within two years as gas prices will continue to increase and effect every segment of our society in a very negative way, just like liberal policies against tree cutting has strangled our oceans with plastic bags! Inspite of what Obama says, government cannot support an entire nation of 300 million people! He will try to control us all with his marxist policies(that is the change he refers to and you vote for him, you get what you deserve!)and he has said so so many times. Is anyone listening? Apparently NOT!!

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.