• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Stopping the EPA's CO2 Regulations

    When the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill passed in the House before last year’s summer recess, Members voting for its passage heard loudly from constituents. Since then the Senate has been reluctant to move forward with a counterpart. It took Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and John Kerry (D-MA) nearly a year to release their cap and trade bill.

    But what Congress has failed to do, the Environmental Protection Agency is willing and able. The agency has already begun the process of imposing costly and environmentally questionable CO2 cuts by using the Clean Air Act. Recognizing the severe problem with this approach, Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) will bring legislation to the Senate floor for debate on Thursday to stop unelected government officials at the EPA from micromanaging the economy.

    Murkowski is using the Congressional Review Act to disapprove of the EPA Administrator’s endangerment finding that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant and harmful to human health and the environment. Murkowski and Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) agreed to bring the joint resolution, S.J. 26, to the floor June 10th, which will consist of up to six hours of debate before voting on a motion to proceed. If the motion is successful by 51-vote majority, the Senate would then allow for an hour debate before voting on its passage, which also requires 51 votes. The disapproval resolution is immensely important because as Ben Lieberman explains:

    Even putting aside growing doubts about the seriousness of the alleged global warming threat, the fact that the Obama Administration is bypassing America’s elected officials and putting legislative authority in the hands of an unelected bureaucracy is objectionable in its own right. Senator Murkowski has recognized that this is precisely the kind of regulatory excess for which congressional restrictions are needed. Her resolution of disapproval would revoke the EPA’s endangerment finding, without which subsequent global warming regulations could not be imposed.

    Allowing the EPA to enforce carbon dioxide cuts would inflict a massive amount of economic pain, in terms of higher energy prices and unprecedented regulatory compliance costs. It’s no surprise representatives from the agricultural, small business and manufacturing industries are adamantly supporting Murkowski’s disapproval resolution.

    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 stands on shaky legal ground – floods of lawsuits are likely to come from environmental groups that believe the EPA should regulate anything and everything. 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. Individuals, 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.

    Enforcing carbon dioxide cuts in any way, shape or form is bad policy that will raise energy prices on Americans for years to come. Having the EPA is, by Administrator Lisa Jackson’s own admission, not the most effective way to regulate CO2 since it comes with higher administrative compliance costs for businesses, higher bureaucratic costs for enforcing the regulations, and higher legal costs from the inevitable litigation. Lieberman asserts that “Congress should put such decision-making authority back where it belongs and prevent perhaps the costliest example of regulatory excess from seeing the light of day.” The Murkowski resolution of disapproval would do just that.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    3 Responses to Stopping the EPA's CO2 Regulations

    1. Robert Brady----Bloo says:

      The core element of turning our country into a "National Socialist Nation" is the "re education" of our children. If conservatives take both houses this year and Obama is replaced by a strong conservative president in 20012 we will have just put a large band aid on our "sore of destruction". Only the restoration of our true history in our education system will turn the tide. This includes things like the introduction of our youth to the founders of the Republic, their intentions, teaching, principles and the tyranny they witnessed in European countries and the protections from tyranny they endeavored to include in the Constitution of the United States. Also these things must be backed up by firm and complete understanding of the US Constitution and that it's not subject to alteration in any age by anyone. Bob Brady

    2. Pingback: Red River Valley Patriots

    3. Pingback: PA Pundits - International

    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.