• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Disapproving of EPA’s CO2 Regulations

    Environmental Protection Agency

    Whatever prospects lie ahead for cap and trade legislation moving through the Senate might not matter if the Environmental Protection Agency continues forward on its path to regulate carbon dioxide. The EPA’s endangerment finding, which took place earlier this year, gives the agency the authority to use Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs). New restrictions on automobiles were the first step in what could eventually be a long, economically painful set of regulations imposed by unelected government bureaucrats – unless Congress steps up to the plate and stops them.

    Lisa Murkowski’s (R–AK) resolution of disapproval would do just that. As Heritage Senior Policy Analyst Ben Lieberman explains, “In order to provide a means of stopping unwarranted or ill-advised regulations, Congress and President Clinton enacted the Congressional Review Act in 1996. The statute allows Congress to pass, by simple majority and with limited debate time, a resolution of disapproval against any newly promulgated federal regulation it opposes, thus revoking the regulation. It is hard to imagine a more appropriate application of the Congressional Review Act than a disapproval against the EPA’s attempt to regulate energy use in the name of addressing global warming.”

    Why? Because the Clean Air Act was never intended to regulate carbon dioxide. As the Clean Air Act is currently written, the endangerment finding would require that the EPA regulate sources or establishments that emit 100 or 250 tons or more of a pollutant per year. This was seen as the best way to combat smog, soot, and other air pollutants – not CO2. This means that Schools, farms, restaurants, hospitals, apartment complexes, churches, and anything with a motor—from motor vehicles to lawnmowers, jet skis, and leaf blowers—could be subject to cost-increasing restrictions.

    The regulations would have the same impact on the economy and employment as would a major new energy tax as passed through cap and trade, but they would be worse, since they would entail more burdensome compliance, administrative, and legal costs. The American Farm Bureau Federation and 48 other agricultural groups sent a letter to the Senate warning that “full implementation would cost farmers more than 866-million dollars just for obtaining permits for farms and livestock operations.”

    This is not an attack on just big business or big agriculture. The regulations could apply to “dairy facilities with over 25 cows, beef cattle operations of over 50 cattle, swine operations with over 200 hogs, and farms with over 500 acres of corn.” Further, over 1.3 million commercial entities could be regulated for the first time and over 3.9 million single family homes could be subject to regulation – and these numbers are according to the EPA.

    EPA is trying to minimize the economic pain, just temporarily, for smaller entities by raising the pollution thresholds in the Clean Air Act. Known as the tailoring rule, the change not only stands on shaky constitutional ground, it also stands on shaky legal ground – floods of lawsuits are likely to come from environmental groups that believe the EPA should regulate anything and everything.

    A Short-term Delay in Pain for Smaller Entities, Not for Everyone Else
    The tailoring rule would only be in place until 2016 and then the millions of smaller entities become fair game again. The American energy consumer will have no such luck. Small businesses, farms, churches, schools and homes will immediately be hit with higher energy prices passed on by the larger energy industries that will be regulated. And as former senator and governor of Virginia George Allen and the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Marlo Lewis explain, even with the tailoring rule in place the EPA can inflict massive amounts of economic pain:

    The tailoring rule also provides no protection from the endangerment finding’s most absurd result–rulemakings to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), set below current atmospheric concentrations, for greenhouse gases. Environmental litigation groups are only acting on the obvious implication of the EPA’s assertion that the root cause of endangerment is the “elevated concentration” of greenhouse gases when they demand that the EPA initiate such rulemakings.

    The economic consequences would be devastating. Even a global depression lasting several decades would not be enough to lower CO2 concentrations from today’s level–roughly 390 parts per million–to 350 ppm, the new politically correct “stabilization” target advocated by former Vice President Al Gore, the Center for Biological Diversity and numerous other environmental groups. Yet under the Clean Air Act, states are obligated to attain NAAQS within five years or, at most, 10 years. The endangerment finding thus sets the stage for environmental activists to transform the Act into a deindustrialization mandate via litigation. The Murkowski resolution would nip all this mischief in the bud.”

    To add salt to the wound, these regulations are all based on a faulty scientific consensus that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are a significant threat to human health and the environment. It’s time for the Senate to act and prevent the EPA from slipping global warming regulations through the backdoor, especially when the public doesn’t want to see them brought in through the front.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    20 Responses to Disapproving of EPA’s CO2 Regulations

    1. Billie says:

      What hideous acts. With speculation only and no evidence, reasonable leaders of principle wouldn't have considered any of this. But the majority aren't reasonable, principled or scrupulous. They go off the money making illusion at everyone elses expense, refusing to grasp reality or it's history, while causing unnecessary, government manufactured, depression.

      While living in hypocrisy with their hands in taxpayers pockets dictating mandates for greed. No amount of money is going to control nature, unless Russia has something their not telling us about?

    2. Joe Bean says:

      These environmental fascists just want to perpetrate their agenda into the political arena at any cost. It's got to be stopped.

    3. David***Newnan,GA says:

      carbon dioxide is not a poisonous gas; it is a natural byproduct of human respiration and a necessary component for plants to create food by synthesizing the carbon and chlorophyll to produce build fructose;; by product of photosynthesis is water; hello. carbon monoxide is a different story, are these nut-bags in Washington really this stupid or just totally corrupt i.e. the Chicago Carbon Exchange, AKA known as Franklin Raines [ Fannie Mae]?

    4. D. Shuster says:

      Is it just me, am I completely confused? Will someone please educate me. CO2 is Carbon DIOXIDE. This is what trees NEED for photosynthesis and the release of O2 for us. CO is Carbon MONOXIDE. This is the "Bad Stuff" from motorcars and the internal combustion engine. Let's please get this straight Al Gore!

    5. bigdave ocala fl says:

      A sample of our government in action: federal government enforces CAFE standards for vehicles. My car gets 35 mpg in California. In Ga and FL, where ETHANOL is added to the gasoline, my mileage tops out at 28, if I drive slow enough!! I LOSE 20% !!!! Common sense is the least common of all senses, and completely absent inside the halls of GOVERNMENT!!! The government screws us on one hand, then in the other!! The lunatics are running the asylum!!!

    6. Lloyd Scallan - New says:

      We still don't get it! It's not about CO2, greenhouse gasses, or any other claims

      that effect our climate. It's about Obama and his ilk using the radical environmnetalist movement to "spread the wealth" or the Communist dream of

      "world wide wealth distribution". Please, everyone should look into the

      Chicago Climate Exchange and the connections with Al Gore and Obama in this money making farce.

    7. Cornelius, NCd says:

      Glenn Beck has aptly covered the whole "green" movement. Just log onto "watchglennbeck.com" and you can watch all his episodes, including "Crime Inc." which identifies all the players behind the whole global warming guise, which is nothing more than a power grab and redistribution of wealth. Please educate yourself, knowledge is power!

    8. Norma in Nebraska says:

      Regulation of C02 is not about the environment, this is not about global warming, this is not about preserving the earth for future generations.

      It is about power, money and ultimately total control. Our leaders are doing their best to tax, spend and regulate this country into bankruptcy. When they have sufficiently destroyed the Constitutional values that our country was founded on, then they can institute their "one world government" briefly introduced to the West Point graduates by President Obama just last week.

      We need to go back and study the "Hitler effect" during WWII. Millions of Jews died because they falsely believed that if they just did what the Germans wanted them to do, they and their families would be okay. And as they marched into the gas chambers, they were praying that SOMEONE would save them from starvation, rape, and scientific experimentation . . . and the net result was that when the Germans didn't need them anymore, they just gassed them to death and threw them into huge trenches like they were the day's garbage.

      Wake up . . . we are being starved to death through taxation, regulation and financial ruin. Are we going to be obediently go to our destruction or are we going to fight back with every fiber of our being?????? No wonder the progressives in this country swear up and down that the Holocaust did not happen . . . they WANT us to forget!

      Our current oil crisis is a perfect solution to the progressives' problem . . . Rohm says "never let a good crisis go to waste." They can successfully argue that stricter requirements are needed to rein in the oil companies. And what they are not saying is that we had GOVERNMENT agencies in place to be the watch dogs, and someone must of been slipping them sleep-inducing drugs because they failed miserably. And instead of putting the responsibility where it belongs, firing those who failed, the solution will be to pass more laws, punish those who cannot fight back successfully and eventually regulate every breath we take, all in the name of making those "bad oil companies" pay . . . which ends up costing you and me!

      So now we have to choose . . . fight to the death or just lay down and wait for them to bury us . . . . dead or alive.

    9. Mary Jane- China Gro says:

      This is another example of the Obama administration thwarting the legislative branch and the US Constitution, making them irrelevant by concentrating power in the executive branch in a planned attempt to create an authoritarian state through bureacracy.

    10. Jeanne Stotler, wood says:

      Are we all suppose to stop exhaling?/ We inhale O2 and exhale CO2, trees use this and pruduce O2, this is rd grade science.

    11. mike arizona says:

      It's a good piece that few understand.

      First is the corruption of the language and history of the term greenhouse gas, starting in 1805.

      Then the abuse of accusing freon of destroying the earth's ozone layer,

      which now proven to be a crystallization of oxygen and solar protons.

      They are now claiming similar abuse by twisting definitions of climate change with abusive terms like global warming and (nasty) greenhouse gases.

      It's really a lowdown use of serious authority and a set back for real science.

      Even the UN CC founders know and admit that the claim is a business decision backed by a primitive sales pitch.

      The early 2008 claim "The Earth has a Fever" and trapped CO2 in the ozone layer lasts for over 200 years and it is steadily destroying the protective ozone layer had to be written by PR writers or a salesman.

      Even if you believed that, Endangerment Findings must be clear threats to US citizens that can be reasonably moderated.

      The EPA has refused to make a legitimate endangerment case and has blatantly chosen to disregard the Supreme Court' exact instructions.

      It has also chosen to ignore serious criticism by it's own experts about the age, the source, and the interpretation of old UN material as the sole basis for it's 2009 findings.

    12. Dr. William Steiner, says:

      Anthropogenic global warming is but a myth being pursued by the UN and the EU via some real junk science.

      1. AGW theorists totally ignore previous periods of a much warmer earth such as the Eocene Epoch. They are not looking at geologic time.

      2. The Vostok ice core studies have shown where the earth went up and the carbon dioxide levels went down. Hence, CO2 is not a real green house gas. Water vapor is.

      So, why would the earth change temperature. Its mostly due to plate tectonics, volcanism, geomagnetism, solar position, and solar activity. It is pure ego to think man can equal the above.

      1. In the last 150 years the earth has seen a 10% decline in the strength of the magnetosphere. That means more high energy particles and radiation from the sun (infrared=heat) reaches the earth's surface where the magentic poles are most exhibited, the subpolar, high latitude areas such as the Arctic and Antarctic.

      2. Volcanism the biggest engine of climate change has been totally ignored by AGW theorists. JK Hilliar of Cambridge University discovered over 200,000 volcanic sea mounts in just a portion of the earth's oceans. That means there are volcanic vents which heat the water to 750 degrees Fahrenheit. These vents turn on and off in a geologic instant. They exhude CO2 and heat the ocean's waters, thereby, taking CO2 out of solution.

      I have more. Lots more. I wrote a book about it, titled, "Stealing Americas Future"

      http://www.stealingamericasfuture.com

      • Rik says:

        You PROBABLY meant to reference "J. K. Hillier", not "JK Hilliar". Spelling and punctuation do matter.
        A simple Google search shows that you have pasted that typo in many places.

    13. Dr. William Steiner, says:

      So, why does the UN and the EU want the USA to bite on the cap and trade carrot?

      The UN wants American citizens to finance third world nations with money we don't have.

      The EU wants to lessen the United States ability to industrially compete, as we make the same things.

    14. mike arizona says:

      Dr Steiner's comments are important.

      Most knowledgeable scientists will not touch this subject for fear of marginalization and research grants.

      On the other side, home owners with equity need to understand the direct exposure to UN/ Cap&Trade assessments.

      Direct access to customer accounts allows the government here to claim it is not a tax.

      There are less than seven countries subject to assessments and 185 countries who are eligible for three kinds of financial aid assessed by the UN Secretariat for Climate Change.

    15. mike arizona says:

      Under the EPA Administrator's discretionary call, most normal humans are serious polluters. Their arterial blood ratios are two to one, oxygen vs carbon dioxide.

      This far more than the allowable 370 ppm concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is about 17% to 21% oxygen.

      Never mind that the arterial blood level moderates oxidation in the lungs and arteries.

      Never mind that the EPA Endanger document summarizes UN reports and leaves the decision to her.

      Never mind that she's not a doctor or scientist, she made the call based on prior pledges and a political agenda.

      The whole process makes a mockery of our system of government and the protection of our own people.

    16. mike arizona says:

      From the EPA Technical Support Document, ie Endangerment Finding…

      Technical Support Document, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

      Executive Summary

      "This document itself does not convey any judgment or conclusion regarding the question of whether GHGs may be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, as this decision is ultimately left to the judgment of the Administrator."

      …………………….

      From Supreme Court ruling 2007

      EPA’s Endangerment Finding explicitly acknowledges that its decision must be exclusively governed by science: “the [Supreme] [C]ourt clearly indicated that the Administrator’s decision must be a ‘scientific judgment.’ She must base her decision about endangerment on the science, and not on policy considerations about the repercussions or impact of such a finding.”

    17. Pingback: The Absurd Report » Disapproving of EPA’s CO2 Regulations

    18. matt california says:

      I respect your opinions and doubts about climate change yet, sense we are unable to know precisely the effects of greenhouse gasses, I think it best not to run an experiment and just find out what happens. Instead, if we do what we know will be best for this land (and not just the humans living on it) future generations will thank our actions. If we ignore CO2 the internal combustion engine and the fuel that powers it still have many shortcomings and the sooner we find a cleaner energy source the better.

    19. Fred Kinzler, Stamfo says:

      The Public I am in touch with are advocating strong regulations on carbon emissions. It is unfortunate that the Senate has been unable to act because of the filibuster threat and has left it up to the EPA to try and wrestle with the GHG threat. All major scientific institutions, world wide, have stated that Global Warming is being caused by GHG's. Let us not stick our heads in the sand. Let us all stand together and work to solve the crisis.

      Thank you,

      Fred

    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.

    ×