At CFIF, while giving credit to a piece published right here in January by Robert Smith, I briefly discuss the importance of today’s unanimous Supreme Court decision in favor of property rights, against the commissars of the Obama EPA.
See the original post here:
A Huge Property Rights Victory
Associated Press: “Romney sweeps NH to cement top status; Paul second” James Taranto: Gingrich—” He’s desperate, he’s angry, and he’s doing Romney a favor. ” The Hill: ” Obama pledges to stand by EPA ”
Continued here:
The Daily Grind: Doing Romney a Favor
Iron Eyes Cody cried at the sight of polluted waters and skies in a famous public service announcement , first aired in 1971. Old Iron Eyes may have been a faux-Indian , but his message resonated with people. The Crying Indian PSA was one of the most successful ever. It resonated because it was true . In the early ’70s, the environment was a mess. Urban skies were noticeably tinged in sepia/grey. Rivers and streams were often clogged with discarded debris and fouled with chemical sludge. April 1970 saw the first Earth Day. In December of the same year, the Environmental Protection Agency was born. The Clean Air Act was passed in 1970, with the Clean Water Act to follow in 1972. 1973 brought the Endangered Species Act. Gradually, the environment improved. The bald eagle and the American alligator came back from the brink of extinction. Air quality improved, there was less litter, and the phosphate foam disappeared from streams. And, rightly or wrongly, EPA got the credit. As the hippies of my generation greyed, they remembered their Earth Day Groove-In fondly. Fast forward to 2011: the EPA has become a stifling, job-killing bureaucracy. What happened? When did the EPA jump the shark? EPA takes credit for cleaning the air of Six Principal Pollutants: Lead, Carbon Monoxide, Ozone, Pariculate Matter, Sulfur Dioxide, Nitrogen Dioxide. The snail darter and the spotted owl were harbingers. The 1.6 gallon-per-flush toilet brought the EPA into the Inner Sanctum of the average American’s home; in 1994, it should have been our clarion call. In California, restrictions on brush-clearing favor the kangaroo rat’s habitat over humans’ habitations. In West Texas, a 3-inch lizard threatens to shut down oil drilling. Beyond the Endangered Species Trump Card, the EPA keeps expanding its purview . The alphabet-soup of CERCLA and other Superfund-related legislation has benefited legions of environmental attorneys and consultants with precious little progress in cleaning up actual pollution. Under President Clinton’s Executive Order, the EPA made an issue of “environmental justice” , based on the anecdotal observation that oil refineries, landfills and chemical plants tend not to be built near posh neighborhoods and country clubs. Frustrated by inaction on Anthropogenic Global Warming, EPA expanded the definition of “pollutant” to cover carbon dioxide, which we exhale and green plants depend on for life. EPA has pushed to set acceptable urban ozone levels lower than the natural levels in Yellowstone Park. But if commercial or property interests push back as the EPA expands its scope, they are characterized as “anti-environment”, without a critical look at the value of the regulation. The public in general is supportive of “the environment”, which translates into popular support of the EPA. Few are interested in cost/benefit analyses or even common sense. But this screed is less an indictment of the EPA in particular than it is an indictment of bureaucracy in general. The problem is that budget growth is structurally built into the system. “Draconian budget cuts” are in fact decreases in a previously-projected rate of growth, not true cuts. Anything that grows at an annual rate of 8% doubles in size in just nine years. By not exercising fiscal restraint, meaning zero-based budgeting, weak politicians tacitly accept “mission creep”. The bureaucracies have grown too large, too complex and too arrogant to accept Congressional oversight. They have expropriated legislative authority with “rulemaking”, and they enforce the laws as they see fit. It’s not just the EPA, it’s virtually every branch of the government. It’s killing our freedom and our prosperity. We need conservative leaders with the cojones to stop it. The Baby Cuckoo: my favorite metaphor for the result of unchecked bureaucratic growth. (The cuckoo is a parasite, not an endangered species!) Cross-posted at stevemaley.com . Follow @VladimirRS !function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=”//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js”;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,”script”,”twitter-wjs”);
More:
When Did the EPA Jump the Shark?
Decisions about our fuel standards are not inconsequential. They move forward an agenda that rewards some energy sectors while punishing others, and at the same time, moves taxpayer dollars right along with those rules and subsidies. Under the current requirements of the Clean Air Act, the EPA can certify a new fuel for the marketplace as long as it does not increase emissions. As a result, when the ethanol lobby requested the EPA allow a higher concentration of ethanol in gasoline, based on a narrow test by the Department of Energy, the agency determined E15 could be used in vehicles made after 2001. I sought input from 14 major US Automakers on how E15 would affect their vehicles. They unanimously reported the higher blend would void warranties, reduce fuel efficiency, and cause premature engine damage. Recent testing by the Coordinating Research Council on engine durability also showed that E15 could cause engine failure. EPA did not perform any tests on engine durability, but pointed to DOE tests as adequate. Their answers only confirmed that the testing was inadequate, and at times, the agencies contradicted each other. For instance, in responding to a question on engine durability, EPA claims the testing “provided a robust means of determining E15’s impact on the durability of all vehicle components.” But DOE’s response to a similar question states that they did not “conduct testing specifically designed to accelerate engine wear and stress as is sometimes done to test engine durability.” If EPA is going to stand by the DOE test, they should at least ensure that DOE believed it to be thorough. To attempt to reconcile these views, I asked the EPA and Department of Energy to answer several questions I had regarding the scientific evidence of their decision. But regardless of questions raised by their own testing, because of the current, limited requirements under the Clean Air Act, the EPA can move forward with registering fuels without considering the effects on vehicle engines. I introduced H.R. 3431 to amend the Clean Air Act. The legislation requires the EPA to also certify that a new fuel will not cost American drivers by causing premature engine failure or forcing them to fill up more often at the pump. Adding these new certification requirements will help provide Americans with a better overall product. Not surprisingly, the ethanol lobby is not happy, asserting that the bill “missed the point” of attempts to reduce America’s dependence on foreign fuel. Reducing dependence on foreign oil is an important goal. However, the EPA should not allow new fuels without assurances that it won’t mean shorter engine life and more trips to the pump. As Americans are trying to do more with less, Congress should ensure that the EPA considers the needs of American drivers who rely on their cars every day, not certain special interest lobbies.
View post:
EPA should consider American drivers, not special interests
Lisa Jackson isn’t the only one happy about how the Environmental Protection Agency is destroying jobs . You may recall some remarks Jackson made previously about the EPA in the face of evidence that proposed regulations would cripple some industry and deeply harm the national economy: In fact, Jackson believes that there is no reason to be concerned about the economics whatsoever. After all, what do the industry leaders know about their own industry when compared to a former chemical engineer? WSJ : This cost-benefit bias may explain why Ms. Jackson could claim at a “green jobs” conference in February that under the Clean Air Act, “For every $1 we have spent, we have gotten $40 of benefits in return. So you can say what you want about EPA’s business sense. We know how to get a return on our investment.” Essentially what Jackson is saying is that the return on investment for the EPA, in the form of regulatory fees, is more important than the very industries that they are tasked with regulating. And it’s not as though Jackson is oblivious to these economic certainties, she just doesn’t seem to care. This conversation between Jackson and Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) caused the Congresswoman to refer to the EPA’s stance as being ‘ hellbent on destroying jobs ‘: “We’ve had a back-and-forth [with EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson] on whether they actually do look at job creation and job losses and the economic impacts of the regulations that they’re creating,” Caputo said. “It’s obvious they do not. [Jackson] told me that, and her folks have said that too — not just to me, but to numerous other people.” Well, Jackson is not alone in her enthusiasm for the destruction of industry and jobs. It turns out that there is another smitten individual, and she used to be Romney’s favorite go-to on environmental issues. Actual standards have not yet been sent to the White House, but EPA is getting closer, air chief Gina McCarthy said yesterday. ‘ We’re kind of excited about nearing the finish line on this ,’ McCarthy said at an air quality conference in Arlington, Va. (Gabriel Nelson, “White House Starts Review of EPA’s Utility Toxics Rule,” E & E News, October 25, 2011) (emphasis mine) So what is she so excited about? None other than the very regulations I’ve written about that are going to cost the nation a total of 1.44 million jobs and cause an 11.5% increase in electricity bills according to an independent study performed at the request of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. The report is of course related to the Clean Air Transport Rule (CATR) & the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Requirements. This is all coming from the same EPA that has created such an enormously burdensome system which they fully acknowledge would be ‘ absurd ‘ to comply with, even while they are requesting billions more dollars to add over 200k more bureaucrats to the rolls. The same EPA which is dead set on destroying the coal industry, which is precisely what our Commander in Chief said he would do at the outset of his presidential bid. They are systematically destroying an industry which will cost us jobs, the ability to reliably produce power, billions of dollars to the economy…and Gina McCarthy is excited that they’re almost ready to start. The pushback from the environmentalists is always the same. They claim that job losses will be offset by job gains in the ‘green’ sector. Between electric cars with questionable business models shipping jobs to Finland and solar panel manufacturers like Solyndra spending almost an entire $500 million loan on a factory that no one was buying product from, my faith in these magical green jobs is rapidly dwindling and I already started from a position of total cynicism. Don’t ever forget, this is all precisely what Barack Obama promised he would do. What candidates do and say matters. Who they work with , what their objectives are, what their previous statements have been. These things have a direct correlation to how they will make decisions and how they will govern. Did I mention that Gina McCarthy used to work for Mitt Romney as a top level environmental advisor? Follow @Ben_Howe
Follow this link:
Romney’s Former ‘Green’ Quarterback is ‘Excited’ EPA Job-Killing Regulations Nearing Finish Line
