• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • EPA Wants to Regulate CO2 but Ignores Vital Information

    Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson recently announced that her agency would proceed with twice-delayed regulations targeting power plants that emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

    Mrs. Jackson’s decision ignores three vital pieces of information that should make it easy for Congress to prevent unelected bureaucrats from regulating CO2:

    • The EPA inspector general’s finding that EPA did not follow federal data quality standards in preparing its “endangerment finding” regarding greenhouse gases.

    • The profusion of scientific dissent.

    • The massive economic costs and minimal environmental benefits.

    In April 2009, the EPA issued an endangerment finding stating that the gases pose a serious threat to human health and public safety. It provided a lengthy technical support document to justify this position.

    But this September, the EPA’s Office of Inspector General released its own report concluding that the agency’s document failed to follow federal guidelines for a “highly influential scientific assessment.” Specifically, the EPA had failed to publicly report its review results. Moreover, one of the federal climate-change scientists reviewing the document was an EPA employee.

    The EPA responded by arguing that the document did not qualify as “highly influential,” yet the agency offered it to justify one of the most expansive – and expensive – regulations in history. If that’s not highly influential, what is?

    The inspector general’s report does not question the scientific validity of the endangerment finding. But disagreement among the scientific community regarding the magnitude of anthropogenic global warming should have been sufficient reason for the EPA not to issue the endangerment finding in the first place.

    Excerpted from The Washington Times. Click here to read more.

    Posted in Featured [slideshow_deploy]

    17 Responses to EPA Wants to Regulate CO2 but Ignores Vital Information

    1. Stirling says:

      C02 is also exhaled by every living organism on this planet – It's called breathing, which is an human function which we need to live.. If the EPA regulates C02 then who's to say the american people will not eventually have their freedoms restricted by this un-elected department. Climate change is clearly a PR tool used by the green movement and the EPA is the government arm of that propaganda.

      • Guest says:

        What I can't understand is why Congress is allowing this to go on. We keep writing "they don't have the right to do this," but I'm not reading or hearing anything from the Legislative branch where these laws are supposed to be made. I write to my representative and senators about that, but they never respond to that point even when they reply. If it were my right to make laws and someone else took it upon themselves to do it instead, I would be making a LOT of noise about it. What's with this?

      • mark says:

        breathing is a human function – wow! China and India once again lead the rest of the world as the biggest polluters!!

    2. guest says:

      The EPA has got it all wrong…. who died and made them king? where do they have the power to regulate/legeslate? in the constitution? I don't think so.
      "All legislative authority shall reside in congress"
      what part of that do they not understand? they have no power to regulate whatsoever
      again, who died and made them king? please enlighten me : )

    3. jeffdotcooper says:

      CO2 regulation means what to the E.P.A?? Limitations on the number of humans produced a year? We produce just over 2 pounds of CO2 a day – do the math. Should we also, then just write off our plant and vegetation systems, considering that they need an abundance of CO2 to simply live? The notion that man can control the biosphere called, Earth, is simply stupid. Did these tree-hugging do-gooders stop to think that their methods and deeds are interfering with natural occurring fluctuations of our Earth? It's high time we end the E.P.A., as well as other conservation regulatory bodies that trample individual rights, including the United States association with Agenda 21 out of the U.N..

    4. Guest says:

      EPA and Lisan Jackson didn't just decide to regulate this on their own. This is just another example of misinformation and disinformation intended to cause partisan dissent and disruption.

      The fact is, EPA was ordered by the Supreme Court to regulate carbon and GHGs in 2007 under the Bush Administration – they are acting on the court order. Further, Congress did not give EPA the budget or the means toward independent research and study, and as such, they were forced to rely on the existing available data and research.

      Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007). http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-112

      As for the other points, there is hardly a "profusion" of scientific dissent, more like a handful of dissenting scientists – and not even all of them agree on what they dissent on, among the thousands doing climate and greenhouse gas research. Similarly, the statement about there being extremely great cost but virtually no benefit is also very much incorrect. There is no credible economic study showing that to be true. Economic regulation has only added around 4% to the cost of goods and services over the course of many decades, yet has saved hundreds of thousands of lives, saved countless billions in economic damage and has provided a host of other benefits far outweighing the costs. It was not that long ago that many American rivers, such as the Cuyahoga, were extremely toxic to where fish could not survive – in fact, the Cuyahoga was so polluted that it routinely caught on fire. Similarly, the smog and acid rain problems of the 1970s, largely generated by inefficient and polluting power plants have been reduced significantly – even as we today produce far more energy than we ever have.

      • Bobbie says:

        Guest, what you write here: "American rivers, such as the Cuyahoga, were extremely toxic to where fish could not survive – in fact, the Cuyahoga was so polluted that it routinely caught on fire? Similarly, the smog and acid rain problems of the 1970s, largely generated by inefficient and polluting power plants have been reduced significantly." what are you saying? failures of government? and the life span of today has tripled since the 18th century. why now regulate a necessity that has only superficial if any evidence only convenient to support it's far fetched issue? how is it known if by regulating this necessity to survive IT won't cause more damage as the "CLAIMED benefit" is MERE SPECULATION?! this is just an excuse to incorporate the mindset you and over half America has, to infiltrate government control and it's costs. the epa is a conflict of interest with no respect for nature with more intent to destroy than protect the environment, controlling our strings…

      • Mike, Wichita Falls says:

        The Supreme Court did not order the EPA to regulate CO2 but simply said they could because they, in their infinite scientific wisdom, determined it was a GHG. Congress could and should by law explicitly remove CO2 from the list of GHG to stop the EPA from regulating the very existence of humans.

        We did not need the EPA to clean up the air, water and land from "big evil polluters". States long had the authority to do so. Yes, some have not always done a good job of it just as some states continued Jim Crow laws after the Civil War and amendments 13-15. In like manner, if the people believe the EPA should exist, the Constitution should be amended to allow for it.

    5. Bobbie says:

      The EPA takes advantage to jump on anything they can without restraint or reason but to manipulate to regulate as long as government god gives the EPA free will. They're not in it for the people and unfortunately for the EPA, people are finding out! Get rid of all unconstitutional costly ignorances held without accountability! WITHIN GOVERNMENT AND SOCIETY!!!

      when within the control of unconstitutional government, overreacting to nit pic builds various costs on everyone and everything, while common sense vital safety measures can be ignored! (bp)

    6. Pat from Texas says:

      Under this administration, the EPA has been given the leeway to do as the President pleases regarding regulating CO2. EPA head Ms. Jackson has been given free rein to regulate us to death if need be, to make us drop to our knees and surrender.

    7. rmgdonnow says:

      I view the EPA as a rogue part of a rogue administration. O promised to "transform" our nation; this is one more policy towards that goal since the EPA doesn't do anything O doesn't want done.

    8. Red Baker says:

      The Supreme Court did not order the EPA to regulate CO2. The finding of the court was for EPA to reconsider CO2, instead of saying it did not have the authorization and the causes of warming were in dispute and not conclusive.

      The basis for the finding of danger from CO2 is hollow. The rise in temperature has been both small and beneficial, a recovery of temperatures from the harmful effects of the little ice age of the 1700's. The named supposed ill effects of global warming are in fact not happening – the predictions of harm have proven false. Sea level has been rising slowly for thousands of years, an normal condition. There has been no damage to ecosystems. There is no reduction in snowpack. There is no increase in disease, in fact disease is retreating everywhere with the progress of economic development, ironically heavily dependent of fossil fuels. There is no increase in the ferocity of weather events. All these assertions are false.

      The case against CO2 is baseless. The greenhouse effect is 90-95% dependent on water vapor. Water vapor in the atmosphere has been declining since at least 1948, based on the observations of hundreds of thousands of weather balloons. The court's and the EPA's reasoning is based on their religious belief in dozens of false premises such as those debunked here. Runaway global warming is a belief, a faulty theory, not a fact. All the dire predictions of warming believers have proven false. Their understanding of the workings of the atmosphere are not well understood.

      The agencies such as the EPA should not be allowed to make gigantic policy decisions. Such power should only rest in the legislature. Congress should remove such power from the EPA and all such agencies. The courts should recognize such major decisions as political, belonging only to Congress.

    9. Lloyd Scallan says:

      It's not the EPA. It's Obama! Wake-up America and understand that no government agency can act independently without approval or direction from Obama. When we blame the EPA or the DOI, or HS, we give excuse to Obama which allows him to get closer to achive his goal of total socialism.

    10. Bob says:

      I personally met Ms. Jackson in Oakland California in 1996 qhile she was working as a air resource board flunkie. I found her to be utterly monotone in her demeanor and completely viod of any emotion what s ever. This ladies and gents is what is telling the american people what they can and cannot do . Quite honestly i think shes been sniffing way to much of what her cheeks have been flapping from her backside!

    11. Gringo Infidel says:

      False science that ignores facts that do not support their agenda is dangerous.

      EPA is run by pseudo scientists and dangerous fools who are enabled by the worst kind of fool in the W.H.

    12. rmgdonnow says:

      I suggest that this is one more instance of the quest for power by the Obama bunch. Lenin was about power, and Hitler and Kim Il Sung and Mao and Khomeini. The only thing which will end their limitless appetite for more power is the election of a Republican President.
      Two questions: What caused the "Medieval Climate Optimum?" From about 900 AD until 1300 AD the temperatures in England were one to three degrees above normal and agriculture flourished. And no "anthropogenic" factor could have been involved. And, since humans are presumably responsible for this incipient disaster, should not there be a sizable decrease in world population, perhaps eliminating ten percent of world population, at least as a beginning????………..

    13. Steve says:

      The EPA does this and some people do not believe that obama care will restrict care if the think your to old or unable to contribute.

      This needs to be stopped or have a revolution against the entire government, and we need to remove every elected official as well as all the others that are there and start over, but make sure there is no liberals input.

      As they are the problem.

    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.