We have urgency for Congress to act on greenhouse gases. Steps have to be taken. The Supreme Court in 2007 ruled that carbon dioxide is a pollutant within the meaning of the 1972 Clean Air Act. As a result, the EPA is in effect under mandate to regulate CO2 emissions. The debate is over. The Supreme Court ended the debate. There will be regulation. The only question is will the EPA regulate it or will Congress intercede with its own regulatory program. Virtually all observers prefer Congress rather than the EPA. The reason is because the EPA does not have the tools available to it under the law to do a good job. For example, the EPA cannot do what I was able to do in 2009. Coal is protected. Related jobs are protected. Utilities that burn coal can continue to do so. I ensured the House bill provides up to $250 billion to deploy CO2 capture and sequestration technologies so coal and be burned without CO2 emissions. The EPA does not have the authority to create a fund for the deployment of these critical technologies.Not only is this pathetic, it's wrong in so many ways, I can't count them all (see below).
To his main point, which is, "The debate is over. The Supreme Court ended the debate. There will be regulation. The only question is will the EPA regulate it or will Congress intercede with its own regulatory program," I reply by saying ...
You are a United States congressman, sir. Man up. If you had any gonads you'd cease bowing before the EPA and work diligently - relentlessly - to mitigate its leftist efforts to destroy the coal industry. You'd stop the extreme environmentalists lurking there from throwing your constituents out of work. Stop them. You have the power to prevent them from decreeing that CO2 - and with it, coal - are pollutants at all.
Hell, you have the power to shut down the EPA if you choose to exercise that power.
If you have it in you.
Perhaps you don't.
But thank God, others in Congress do:
Three Dems Back Effort to Halt Global Warming RegulationBe it hereby mandated by the Congress of the United States of America: Any rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gases shall have no force or effect.
By Brian Montopoli, CBS News
Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska is leading the charge to block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gasses, and today she got some support from across the aisle: Three Democratic senators signed onto Murkowski resolution to bar such regulation.
The Democrats, the Associated Press reports, are Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas. Murkowski's resolution says a rule submitted by the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases "shall have no force or effect." Thirty-five Republicans co-sponsored the measure. [link]
How difficult was that?
Let's revisit that quote from our spineless representative in Washington:
" The Supreme Court ended the debate. The only question is will the EPA regulate it or will Congress intercede with its own regulatory program."
Not even. The only question is: Do you represent the environmentalists in Washington or do you represent the people of Southwest Virginia?
- - -
Let's look again at that Supreme Court ruling and Boucher's convenient interpretation of it:
Boucher: "The Supreme Court in 2007 ruled that carbon dioxide is a pollutant within the meaning of the 1972 Clean Air Act. As a result, the EPA is in effect [my emphasis] under mandate to regulate CO2 emissions."
Wrong. Note the weasel words "in effect." The Supreme Court made no such ruling mandating anything other than that the state of Massachusetts was to be afforded standing in this matter. To Boucher's point, I quote from the ruling:
"Because greenhouse gases fit well within the Act’s capacious definition of “air pollutant,” EPA has statutory authority to regulate emission of such gases from new motor vehicles."
EPA has the authority under the Clean Air Act. It doesn't say the EPA must exercise that authority, though one could reasonably argue that the Supremes' position is that it should. Nor does it bar Congress - Boucher - from amending the Clean Air and prohibiting EPA from regulating greenhouse gases.