Baucus: EPA should not regulate greenhouse gases on its own

posted at 10:55 am on October 7, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Max Baucus assured constituents in Great Falls, Montana, that the EPA should not attempt to regulate greenhouse gas emissions on its own, but should wait for Congress to act instead. He also stressed to the members of the energy cooperative in town that any such regulation should exempt them from compliance, because … er … he needs their votes, or something. In any case, Baucus doesn’t sound so exercised by the arrogation of power from the EPA that he intends to do much about it if it happens, because he’ll be busy working on the tax legislation that Democrats have put off for almost two years:

The [D]emocratic Senator addressed members of the Montana Electric Cooperatives’ Association, or MECA, during an annual meeting. …

Baucus noted, “I mentioned that I do not want the EPA writing those regulations. I think it’s too much power in the hands of one single agency, but rather climate change should be a matter that’s essentially left to the Congress.”

Senator Baucus says while capping EPA’s control over greenhouse gas standards is critical, he says he may be more focused on tax legislation next year.

Baucus also chairs the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Congressional panel that has punted on taxation since January 2009. He should have been focused on tax legislation this year, since all of the income and investment tax rates escalate on January 1, 2011.  He’s also a member of the Environment and Public Works committee chaired by Barbara Boxer, which has shown almost no interest at all in reining in the EPA and its attempted end-run around Congress with its finding that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.  Since Baucus has managed to do nothing for most of this year, perhaps he can get his well-rested self in position to handle both situations at the same time now.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Not gonna do what’s right, though?

Then shut your fat piehole.

fossten on October 7, 2010 at 10:57 AM

Isn’t Baucus up in 12?

Target him in a BIG way.

Tester should be gone too.

artist on October 7, 2010 at 10:58 AM

Max (Headroom) Baucus.

I don’t know why but that just sort of popped into my mind when I watched that video.

Oldnuke on October 7, 2010 at 11:01 AM

Yeah, right, Max. They shouldn’t, but you and your buddies at the Beltway Country Club won’t do a darn thing about it.

kingsjester on October 7, 2010 at 11:02 AM

Well since everyone who has a functioning brain now knows it’s all a hoax …

tarpon on October 7, 2010 at 11:03 AM

Somebody sound scared…

Vashta.Nerada on October 7, 2010 at 11:04 AM

I might have believed him if he had made this statement in Jan 2009. Now it is just to make people think he is not drinking the cool-aid but also sipping tea.

(paraphrase charlie)

barnone on October 7, 2010 at 11:05 AM

Dang, if only these Democrats were in control of the House, Senate and Presidency. . . oh, wait. . .

rbj on October 7, 2010 at 11:06 AM

Isn’t Baucus up in 12?

Target him in a BIG way.

Tester should be gone too.

artist on October 7, 2010 at 10:58 AM

Baucus in 2014. Tester in 2012. Unfortunately the GOP bench in Montana isn’t very deep. Baucus has had 2 elections in a row without very serious opposition.

acasilaco on October 7, 2010 at 11:08 AM

Unless they’re prepared to stand up and assert that based on the information we have now no one has any business regulating CO2, they’re as bad as Boxer.

Sack him.

JEM on October 7, 2010 at 11:11 AM

I is the letter for today.

Ingrate, ignoramous, idiot, imbecile, insipid, imploding, insulated, ignorant. Did I leave anything out? lol

capejasmine on October 7, 2010 at 11:12 AM

Max sounds a lot different outside of DC…

d1carter on October 7, 2010 at 11:13 AM

Max sounds a lot different outside of DC…
d1carter on October 7, 2010 at 11:13 AM

Do you mean he sounded sober?

bluemarlin on October 7, 2010 at 11:23 AM

How’s about we fully defund the EPA and make congress always enact legislation so that at least someone is accountable?

One of a long list of bureaucracies which should be dismantled. Just think of the money that could be saved!

Zippy_Slug on October 7, 2010 at 11:30 AM

If you think about it, Baucus should be looked at as a CHIEF CAUSE of greenhouse gases, as in every time he opens his big fat loud mouth.

pilamaye on October 7, 2010 at 11:36 AM

Zippy_Slug – I don’t know about ‘fully defund’ but the EPA ought to be on the list for a big haircut.

JEM on October 7, 2010 at 11:40 AM

The first outrage was declaring CO2 a ‘pollutant’. We reverse that ruling and all the rest goes away.

slickwillie2001 on October 7, 2010 at 11:54 AM

was he slurring again…?

ted c on October 7, 2010 at 12:02 PM

The first outrage was declaring CO2 a ‘pollutant’. We reverse that ruling and all the rest goes away.

slickwillie2001 on October 7, 2010 at 11:54 AM

And while we’re at it, let’s stop declaring dust & ‘smells’ pollutants.
Do you know the EPA is looking at coming up with a test to regulate ‘offensive’ smelling agriculture operations?
We’ve been opposing this for years.
There is NO reliable scientific finding indication that CO2 is a pollutant.
Dust/particulate matter in huge amounts can be a pollutant, but the EPA wants to downgrade the size of that matter so that driving on a dirt road would make you a polluter.
They’ve backed off with it a little, but they’ll be at it full speed again, from a different angle.
The USDA is already coming at NAIS from a different angle-& thankfully a more sane one, given the huge uproar that a mandated National Animal ID program was getting.
Thank Goodness for the hard work of our Stockmen’s associations all across the country.

Badger40 on October 7, 2010 at 12:05 PM

was he slurring again…?

ted c on October 7, 2010 at 12:02 PM

Is Baucus a boozer?

slickwillie2001 on October 7, 2010 at 12:16 PM

But he will not be the chairman of the committees in 2011. That will be his excuse for the next few years. After all, since he did not let the minority do anything until now, he will claim that he could not do anything because will be in the minority.

sabbahillel on October 7, 2010 at 12:16 PM

These are the things Democrats and John McCain say right before elections to make people think they’re “moderates” but then somehow after the elections are over they conveniently forget they ever said.

dczombie on October 7, 2010 at 1:37 PM

I thinks the voters are going to limit YOUR D.C. POLITICAL OFFGASSING on 11/2.

TEEEEEA-NAMI!!!!!!

PappyD61 on October 7, 2010 at 2:10 PM

Baucus noted, “I mentioned that I do not want the EPA writing those regulations. I think it’s too much power in the hands of one single agency, but rather climate change should be a matter that’s essentially left to the Congress.”

Except that EPA has already imposed a “rule” that facilities emitting more than 250,000 tons/year of CO2 must employ “Best Available Control Technology” to reduce CO2 emissions. Since nobody really knows (including the EPA) what that might be, permit applications for new power plants have been reduced to a standstill, and if demand for power increases, gird your loins for rolling blackouts. Also, what happens when permits for existing power plants are up for renewal?

Oh, by the way, 250,000 tons/year of CO2 is equivalent to about 60 megawatts of power from natural gas, or about 30 MW from coal. Most commercial power plants produce at least 250 MW, so that the EPA’s Lisa Jackson has unilaterally decided without congressional approval that everyone’s electricity bill will “skyrocket” by executive fiat.

Cap and Trade may have failed to pass the Senate, but is Baucus ready to vote to PROHIBIT the EPA from regulating CO2 emissions?

Steve Z on October 7, 2010 at 2:40 PM

Also, what happens when permits for existing power plants are up for renewal?

Steve Z on October 7, 2010 at 2:40 PM

When BO was elected, it brought the construction of an already permitted (if I recall right) gasification plant in South Heart ND to a standstill.
The company then had to redo the whole idea to make it ‘green’.
They may have done this voluntarily-but it has gotten rid of-& slowed down-the hiring of people in order to construct this plant.
I’m not sure what is going on with it now.
It’s a bunch of BS.
It is basically the EPA’s fault there are no new refineries & aging ones are the only ones left here in the US.

Badger40 on October 7, 2010 at 5:49 PM

There is NO reliable scientific finding indication that CO2 is a pollutant.

This depends on what one’s definition of “pollutant” is. If it is introduced into the environment and causes harm due to the quantity of its additional presence, then maybe it should be considered as a pollutant.

There are those who say that carbon dioxide is a natural substance, and therefore cannot be declared a pollutant. To those with that view, would you also declare that the naturally-occurring heavy metals, such as arsenic and lead, aren’t pollutants? What about dioxins? Or phosphates?

oakland on October 7, 2010 at 8:30 PM