• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Defunding EPA’s Ability to Regulate CO2

    Last Friday, House Republicans re-introduced legislation that would fund the federal government for the remainder of fiscal year 2011. This iteration included deeper cuts that would reduce spending for the rest of the year by a total of $100 billion compared to the President’s budget proposal. Though the new proposal includes $16 billion in unwise cuts to security spending, taking their initial spending reduction proposal back to the drawing board for more cuts shows lawmakers’ commitment to putting the federal budget on a sustainable path, and is a promising step forward.

    Among the several needed cuts made by the House majority’s revamped proposal is a provision to prohibit funding for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) under the Clean Air Act. This spending cut proposal is a move that makes economic and fiscal sense. Congress never intended the Clean Air Act to cover carbon dioxide (CO2), and the result of doing so would be economically catastrophic.

    As Congress follows through on its commitment to rein in federal spending, spending reductions within the EPA should be a no-brainer. The EPA recently started the process of regulating CO2 emissions by requiring facilities that emit more than 25,000 tons of CO2-equivalent per year to report its emissions to the EPA, and newly constructed or modified facilities that emit more than 75,000 tons per year will require EPA-issued greenhouse gas permits. These rules mostly affect larger energy-intensive companies first (over 10,000 entities), including fossil fuel power plants and petroleum refineries. But because most of America’s energy needs come from carbon-emitting fossil fuels, American energy consumers will be hit hard.

    These higher energy prices have rippling effects throughout the economy. It may well be that some businesses will experience an increase in employment, such as General Electric and Siemens, which stand to make millions because they are the two largest manufacturers of the coriolis flow meters used to measure emissions. But overall, companies are burdened with significantly higher energy costs and higher administrative costs that will be reflected in their product prices, which will ultimately affect American consumers. The higher prices make businesses’ products less attractive to consumers and thus less competitive. As a result, total employment would drop along with the drop in sales. The overall economic effect will be trillions of dollars extracted from our economy and over 1 million jobs killed—even after counting for the highly touted “green job” creation.

    Congress should use every tactic available to prohibit the EPA from regulating CO2. Congress should legislatively prohibit the EPA from regulating CO2, use its oversight authority to investigate the agency’s scientific distortions and flawed conclusion that CO2 is a harmful pollutant and use its power of the purse to deny any funds to the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. Congress should also ensure that unelected bureaucrats cannot regulate our economy using other acts besides the Clean Air Act, such as the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act.

    Reining in the powers of the EPA is sound policy and would move Congress one step closer to achieving the deep and widespread federal spending cuts crucial to putting the nation’s fiscal house on a sustainable path in the years to come.

    Co-authored by Kathryn Nix.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    7 Responses to Defunding EPA’s Ability to Regulate CO2

    1. Jax Tico Jacksonvill says:

      "Cut Baby Cut" EPA has got to go.

    2. Pingback: Tweets that mention The Foundry: Conservative Policy News. -- Topsy.com

    3. Pingback: » Financial News Update – 02/15/11 NoisyRoom.net: The Progressive Hunter

    4. Pingback: Tweets that mention Defunding EPA’s Ability to Regulate CO2 | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News. -- Topsy.com

    5. Pingback: PA Pundits - International

    6. mike arizona says:

      The EPA approach to our problems borders on extortion.

      There is no good that can come of such actions.

      Under the table, political wrangling is not science.

      Twisting words and definitions is not science.

      The warning from EPA legal staff to the Endagerment Study group was clear.

      The warning was not to claim that carbon dioxide was a direct cause of endangerment.

      The study group did two things it declined to make any recommendations

      to the Administrator, and it admiited that carbon dioxide was not an endangerment to the public, at current or any projected levels.

      The reality is that carbon dioxide is not an issue for any endangerment.

      The absurd diversion was to add five proven pollutants into a well mixed combination of 6 GHG's, and then claim that CO2 must be regulated because of the mixing.

      The EPA has a UN IPCC agenda, combined with a US Charter.

      It needs to decide who it works for and who decides what needs to be regulated.

    7. Ben California says:

      your blog purports to "marry the best in public policy research with the day's current events". if this was so, you couldn't possibly approve of de-funding the EPA's ability to regulate emissions. there is no climate scientist out there who denies that humans are hastening climate change. we know that climate change will imperil future generations. to think otherwise is either to put your head in the sand, or to welcome the end of the world as we know it.

      certain issues should be beyond the purview of sectarian politics. preservation of this earth for our children and grandchildren should certainly be one such issue.

    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.