• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • EPA Takes Another Shot at the Economy, Proposes More Micromanagement

    As Congress tries to knock out the economy in one fell swoop with its economically dangerous cap and trade proposal, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking a different approach: proposing smaller, regulatory jabs at the economy with the intent to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions.

    First, the EPA worked with the Department of Transportation to propose new vehicle standards - a 5 percent annual increase in fuel economy starting with the 2012 model year, reaching 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016. Last week, they announced the largest emitters of greenhouse gases must report their emissions.

    Now, they’re going after large facilities. Just yesterday, “The Environmental Protection Agency announced plans to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, factories and oil refineries — a warning shot to Congress that if it does not move to curb global warming, the Obama administration will act on its own.”

    In her speech, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said,

    By using the power and authority of the Clean Air Act, we can begin reducing emissions from the nation’s largest greenhouse gas emitting facilities without placing an undue burden on the businesses that make up the vast majority of our economy. This is a common sense rule that is carefully tailored to apply to only the largest sources — those from sectors responsible for nearly 70 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions sources. This rule allows us to do what the Clean Air Act does best – reduce emissions for better health, drive technology innovation for a better economy, and protect the environment for a better future – all without placing an undue burden on the businesses that make up the better part of our economy.”

    Although the newly proposed EPA rule will not apply to schools, restaurants and small businesses, it’s the large emitters of carbon dioxide that provide America with 85 percent of its energy needs. Regulating greenhouse gases with “the use of best technologies” will mean higher costs for energy passed on to schools, restaurants, small businesses, and of course, the consumer. Further, EPA’s attempt to exempt smaller entities is on flimsy legal ground and is not likely to withstand the inevitable and endless lawsuits from environmental activists

    The Heritage Foundation’s analysis of the carbon capping Waxman-Markey bill project higher energy and other costs for a household of four – nearly $3,000 per year between 2012 and 2035. Gasoline prices will rise by 58 percent ($1.38 more per gallon) and average household electric rates will increase by 90 percent by 2035. And if the EPA is running the show, the micromanaging of our economy and the compliance costs that come along with it will only increase the costs.

    On April 17, the EPA issued an endangerment finding, saying that global warming poses a serious threat to public health and safety. Interestingly, Jackson spoke as if 60-comment period on the endangerment finding and the EPA’s plan to regulate carbon dioxide was met with unanimous support. She said, “We have received more than 400,000 responses in the 60-day public comment period. And we soon expect a final document that will lay the foundation for reducing greenhouse emissions and confronting climate change.”

    But through The Heritage Foundation’s StopEPA.com site, nearly 30,000 of you voiced your opinion against EPA regulations. Other organizations, such as The US Chamber of Commerce, American Solutions, FreedomWorks, and the Institute for Energy Research aggregated similar numbers, but there’s no mention of that.

    Contrary to Administrator Jackson’s assertions, using the Clean Air Act to regulate CO2 would likely be the most expensive environmental regulation in history and will bypass the legislative process completely. While some Members of Congress undoubtedly support the EPA’s attempt to curb global warming, the fact that unelected and unaccountable EPA bureaucrats are trying to use backdoor rulemaking to reduce carbon dioxide makes it all the more objectionable.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    12 Responses to EPA Takes Another Shot at the Economy, Proposes More Micromanagement

    1. juandos, overland says:

      Here's some folks that might also have some problems with the EPA…

      Coal conflict: Hopi, Navajo tribes say environmentalists not welcome on reservations

    2. Bobbie Jay says:

      This is fraud and corruption on the basis of a non-existence. Why aren't arrests being made?

    3. Bill San Antonio TX says:

      Was it not a liberal democrat who quipped, "It's the economy stupid"?

      This will result in more job loss (we really need that right now).

      The administration will counter by saying they SAVED the environment and the world. More importantly, there "eventually" will be plenty of Green Jobs, whatever that is.

      Meanwhile, if Americans are so poor they have to live in huts for a few decades – sacrifice will be needed.

      Keystone Cops at their best.

    4. Ken St Louis says:

      You know, I remember when George Bush senior signed the bill to create the environmental protection agency. I thought at the time that it would soon be another out of control government agency, and sure enough, its just another craphole federal agency sucking up $s and creating havoc everywhere they go!!!@

    5. Woody Mission TX says:

      Egregiously outrageous!

    6. Julian says:

      This is all based on pseudo science and is designed to line special interest pockets. Even if we went along with all their ideas, pollution is a global problem, and the atmosphere equalizes the air. India & China and many 3rd world countries are not going to reduce any contribution they make to bad enviornment, and without that, we are peeing in the ocean!

    7. David, St. Louis says:

      This is so totalitarian, frankly. Congress should be outraged. It's particularly terrible that the EPA is to begin regulating carbon under the Clean Air Act, but only at higher concentrations than the law technically requires, because to do otherwise would be "absurd." Plainly they don't care what the law says, they're just going to find whatever excuse they can to do what they want to. They're acting precisely like dictators. We need to make that clear to everyone.

    8. Charles Mana, Saint says:

      This whole situation with goverment agencies running and ruining our lives boils down to one thing and that is STATE'S RIGHTS. What the Federal goverment is doing is against the Constitution. Like the people in goverment who are trying to get rid of guns and leave us totally defenseless is against the second amendment, the majority of the states will in the end make their own laws supporting the second amendment since it is a part of the Constitution. To deny that it is unconstitutional to make any law restricting the use of guns in any way, that person is not supporting the Constitution. Infact it is obligatory that all citizens and all states support and defend the second amendmenmt since it is a part of the Constitution and must not be violated, just so it is with the environmental agency or EPA, no where in the Constitution is there stated the right of the Federal Government to control industry in the various states. The only thing stated in the Constitution is regulating trade with regard to tarrifs and regulating trade between states and states and other countries and again only as regards the imposition of tarrifs and other fees which could be charged to imports. The states must now make their own laws regulating the industries within their borders which they can do as per what is not specified in the Constitution is left to the states and to the individual citizen. We must litterally throw the Federal Government out of all of the states and the states must deal with the federal Government exactly as if the state is a person. In this way all income tax and other agency and commission controlled acts, HUD, NEA, FED, EPA, Patriot Act and any other Acts or Agencies must be done away with and this would be possible if the States took it upon themselves to deal with the Federal Government with regard to taxes, EPA, Social Security Commission, regulation of insurances, the FDA, FCC, FTC, FAA and all of these agencies should be elimminated and the states take over these activities.

      The United States forgot what it was about when they even got rid of the Articles of Confederation thus creating the machinery to eventually create a strong central tyranical government and this was cemented when the South lost the Civil War.

    9. Steven Dallas Texas says:

      Is this why Americans have purchased guns and ammo at record levels since Obama took office?

    10. Randy Williams, Fall says:

      The EPA is ruining our lives. How do we get rid of the EPA?

    11. Green Cove Springs says:

      How did government get to control CO2? I need CO2 to keep my trees healthy. Can I be arrested for exhaling CO2 near my kids?

      Did all stupid people in the world get together to run this once great country?

    12. Phyllis Irons , Mich says:

      When everything that is green turns brown and all our gardens won't grow food I guess they will say they elimated co/2. No one left on earth to polute.

    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.

    ×