In short, Boucher is lying to us.
Here it is again. Why
The EPA made him do it.
Because the Supreme Court made the EPA do it.
From yesterday's Bristol Herald Courier (see "Boucher: Coal profits supersede environmental concerns"):
Bristol, Va. – In a speech to the Eastern Coal Council Wednesday, U.S. Rep. Rick Boucher vowed to fight for industry on two controversialenvironmental measures.
Boucher, D-9th, said he will work to reinstate issuance of Nationwide 21 permits, which allowed a more streamlined permitting process for surface mining, and will continue to work toward a greenhouse gas bill more favorable to the coal industry and coal-fired utilities.
Boucher also detailed why he has actively supported the cap-and-trade bill being crafted in Congress to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
He said a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling effectively ended the climate change debate and Congress does not have the political will to override the ruling – meaning regulation in some form is inevitable. His role, therefore, has been to engage in the process in hopes of creating a more industry-friendly bill, he said.
He was, in other words, powerless.
Here's Boucher attempting to foist upon us the same ruse earlier in the year (see "Boucher: Cap and trade deal preserves coal jobs" in the Bluefield Daily Telegraph):
“The fact is that we will inevitably have controls on greenhouse gases. Refraining from controlling is no longer an option. The Supreme Court ended the debate two years ago when it held that the Environmental Protection Agency must regulate green gas [sic] unless the Congress regulates first." [my emphasis]Before he became a two-faced, lying politician, Rick Boucher was a lawyer. That would lead one to believe that he knows how to read case law.
The Supreme Court did not hold that the EPA must regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
(Nor did the Supreme Court end the debate over the issue of global warming, but we'll go there another day.)
What did the Supreme Court do?
The Boston Globe, April 2, 2007:
The Associated Press, April 2, 2007:
In a defeat for the Bush administration, the US Supreme Court ruled Monday that greenhouse gases are a pollutant and ordered federal environmental officials to re-examine their refusal to limit emissions of the gases from cars and trucks.The justices' 5-4 decision did not go as far as to require the US Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide. Rather, the court directed the agency to take a new look at the gases. [my emphasis]
NPR, April 2, 2007:
Washington — The Supreme Court ordered the federal government on Monday to take a fresh look at regulating carbon dioxide emissions from cars, a rebuke to Bush administration policy on global warming.
In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars. [my emphasis]
The Supreme Court stood up for the environment in two major court rulings Monday. One gives the Environmental Protection Agency the go-ahead to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The second ruling sends ...Bloomberg:
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that the Environmental Protection Agency does, in fact, have the authority to regulate the greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change.
The ruling does not require the EPA to regulate. But Heinzerling says for the EPA to avoid regulating, it would have to show that these emissions don't endanger public health or welfare. [my emphasis]
"The ruling doesn't necessarily mean the EPA will have to impose new regulations."
And here's the relevant passage from the actual Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA (majority opinion written by Justice Stevens):
In short, EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change. Its action was therefore “arbitrary, capricious, . . . or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 42 U. S. C. §7607(d)(9)(A). We need not and do not reach the question whether on remand EPA must make an endangerment finding, or whether policy concerns can inform EPA’s actions in the event that it makes such a finding. Cf. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 843–844 (1984). We hold only that EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute. [my emphasis]Contrary to that which Congressman Rick Boucher would have you believe, the Supreme Court did not require the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. What it did was recognize the fact that the EPA had the authority to do so and called upon the EPA to act within its statutory authority, or explain to the Court why it wouldn't.
Here's what you need to know about all this: Not only did the EPA find itself having to alter its stance with regard to global warming, CO2, etc., but Congress - Boucher - was presented with the opportunity to change the federal regulations pertaining thereto.
Rick Boucher could have acted in the best interests of Virginia's coal miners and sought that change in regulation.
Or Rick Boucher could have gone along with the pack, shrugged his shoulders, and said, "The Supreme Court and EPA made me do it."
Rick Boucher took the cowardly approach, saying "Refraining from controlling is no longer an option." It was very much an option.
This from our elected representative in this our democratic Republic.
This from a man who was given that controlling authority by the people of Southwest Virginia on Election Day, November 4, 2008. By the Constitution of the United States of America.
This from a man who would rather run and hide. And who ran and hid.
This from a man who prefers making excuses to standing up to his powerful environmentalist friends in Washington.
This from a man who has never bucked his party in his life.
This from a loser.
This from Rick Boucher, United States Representative, 9th Congressional District, Virginia.