• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • EPA’s Power Grab Endangers the Economy

    Nowhere in the Clean Air Act does the term “greenhouse gas” (GHG) appear, yet the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is invoking the statute to unleash economy-busting emissions strictures.

    The agency’s latest power grab is not going unchallenged, however. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has filed a federal lawsuit to force the EPA to reconsider the regulatory scheme that will otherwise encumber the energy and manufacturing sectors as well as millions of offices, apartment buildings, shopping malls, restaurants, hotels, hospitals, schools, houses of worship, theaters, and sports arenas.

    The Chamber’s suit is procedural in scope: It seeks to compel the EPA to reconsider its “finding” that GHG emissions, as the supposed cause of global warming, endangers public health and welfare. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson in July denied petitions for reconsideration filed by the Chamber, the states of Virginia and Texas, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Peabody Energy Corporation, and others.

    Jackson’s refusal to reconsider the “endangerment finding” was all the more objectionable for having followed closely a series of revelations exposing deception and fraud in the research widely cited as proof of anthropogenic climate change.

    Moreover, the regulations are unsupported by either clinical studies or toxicological data normally relied upon by the agency to discern an actual threat to human health and the environment. In the case of greenhouse gases, however, the EPA has acted solely on hypothetical effects that remain hotly contested.

    It was never the intention of Congress to regulate carbon dioxide or other so-called greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, and previous Administrations have declined to do so. Evidently, this Administration is more interested in scoring points with the green lobby than in alleviating unemployment and jumpstarting the moribund economy.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    16 Responses to EPA’s Power Grab Endangers the Economy

    1. Fred T Burton Suwane says:

      This article seems to reflect an attitude that Big Goverment has displayed , above the law, toward (we the people).

      It is easy to see why many citizens, have lost so much respect, for Goverment Office Holders…

    2. Pingback: CareerEco — Blog — Coalition Plans Campaign to Protect EPA Climate Action, Mulls Future Direction - New York Times

    3. CARL C WRIGHT, ROUND says:

      I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A TEMPARARY LAW THAT WOULD REMOVE ALL EPA LAWS BACK TO 1969 LEAVE THEM AT THAT LEVEL FOR 10 YEARS SO AS TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY.THE EPA IS A TOOL OF THE LEFT. IT, ON ONE HAND CLAIMS THAT ONE DROP OF OIL IN 3 OLIMPIC SIZE POOLS WILL KILL ANY AND ALL AQUATIC LIFE IN THAT AREA. WE HAVE AN OIL SPILL IN THE GULF THAT HAS DISPERSED MILLIONS OF BARRELS OF OIL ENOUGH DROPS TO KILL ALL AQUATIC LIFE IN 5 OF THE 7 OCEANS AND YET THERE IS SEA LIFE SERVIVING IN OUR GULF.

    4. Randy Dutton says:

      I grow timber and CO2 is an essential component of a tree's growth. Perhaps we should sue the EPA for trying to prevent our trees from growing?!

      Further, the EPA isn't coming down on ethanol used in fuel, despite ethanol use causing a dramatic increase in ground level ozone. The WA State Dept of Ecology personally told me in 2008 that any more than 2% ethanol in the fuel and Seattle exceeds EPA ozone attainment levels. Thus the EPA won't control a biofuel mandated by the government but does want to control a critical component to all life on Earth. Hypocrisy!

      Is the EPA going to reverse the Congress preventing the use of biomass from national forests for burning as fuel? Burning wood bypasses the methane cycle, and converts wood directly to CO2. Left to rot in the forest, wood releases methane, which is 28 times more effective as a global warming gas than CO2, and after 9 years on average oxidizes to CO2 anyway. The Congress actually implemented a regulation that increases global warming effect!

      Most members of Congress are science and economic illiterates!

    5. Pingback: PA Pundits - International

    6. Pingback: » LETTER: Dirty Air Act is messy business - Taunton Daily Gazette

    7. Pingback: LETTER: Dirty Air Act is messy business – Taunton Daily Gazette

    8. Dana PA says:

      The EPA has become too powerful and the Fed Gov. is allowing them to be. Just one way to pass a law without any of the Representatives having to vote on it. Time to shut down the EPA and start with some reasonable regulations. Greenhouse gas my eye. Without CO2 the trees would not be alive, or grass or anything else that is Green. We must stop the EPA before we are without power to run anything. We must stop the EPA before all of our jobs are lost to other countries without any pollution standards.

    9. robmull says:

      america seems to be headed down the same road as venezuela did, not too long ago. our executive branch is all powerful and has nearly made congress obsolete.

    10. Jamie Friedland, DC says:

      You have got to be kidding me. To characterize the EPA's regulation of GHGs as a "power grab" is beyond deceitful in its distortion of reality.

      You have neglected to mention the fact that in 2007 the Supreme Court ORDERED the EPA to regulate GHGs in Massachusetts v. EPA. Yes, I'm citing Wikipedia, that's how basic this deliberate omission is.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._Env

      That ruling said that the EPA *MUST* regulate GHGs if they contribute to climate change. They unquestionably do (to suggest that GHGs have no impact on climate demonstrates a level of self-denial and/or or scientific illiteracy that precludes you from being taken seriously in this matter). Thus the EPA is forced to regulate GHGs. That’s not a power grab, it’s fulfilling their legal obligations and complying with a Supreme Court mandate.

      To reverse the endangerment finding, which is objective, nonpartisan and not even scientifically controversial, is to replace actual science with political science. And that is grossly inappropriate.

      This post is low.

      But thank you for respecting my first amendment rights and posting this comment.

    11. Pingback: CareerEco — Blog — Clean Air Act Turns 40 - New York Times (blog)

    12. Pingback: EPA Issuing US Carbon-Limits Guidance Soon, Agency Chief Says – BusinessWeek « Contacto Latino News

    13. Rolland H. Owen Jr. says:

      I know more about what's going for November around the Country except for Texas.I need more info on My Reps in Texas!!! I need more on My Reps in Texas for My vote in Nov.

    14. Chris Sparta, VA says:

      Jamie there are a couple of problems with your contention.

      You are correct about the court ruling, however, read the exact wording and you will see that the ruling states ….if they contribute to climate change. CO2 is 0.0314% of the atmosphere and all of the data that you would like to site as PROOF that we are causing global warming, no wait, climate change has been called into question. If man is the source of global warming…shoot I mean climate change how can you explain the extensive periods of earths tempature history that were significantly higher than they are now? The activity of the sun is most probably the main driver of earths tempatures. There is vastly more scientific evidence of this than the recently debunk CO2 contention. But hey, keep believing the people like Al Gore and Van Jones who are positioned to profit enourmously by cap and trade. I'm sure they have your best interests in mind.

    15. Jamie Friedland, DC says:

      Chris, I read the ruling carefully and that “if” even made it into my comment. But that question is settled to a satisfactory level to proceed. If you are genuinely asking those questions about climate change, I would be happy to point you in the right direction, but it would be a very long comment to post here and you sound like you may have made up your mind.

      If you haven’t, however, you are right that there are numerous climate mechanisms; anthropogenic (human-caused) GHGs are one of them, the sun is another. To address your particular point, though, the sun is not driving this current warming; we are seeing record temps while in a the biggest solar minimum in a century.

      http://climateprogress.org/2010/04/12/global-cool

      The IPCC put together a great graph showing the warming/cooling effects on our current climate: http://tinyurl.com/39g4ag4

    16. Pingback: Cheap Shot: Polluters Cry ‘Power Grab’ to Attack Crucial U.S. Conservation Rules : Wildlife Promise

    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.

    ×