EPA official who pushed CO2 regulation resigns

posted at 10:54 am on November 5, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

In the wake of historic midterm losses, people wondered whether Barack Obama would be willing or even able to execute a shift to the center and work with Republicans in the House to find areas of common ground on policy, or whether he would shift to regulatory innovation to push his agenda.   Most people guessed the latter, but a personnel change yesterday at EPA may suggest that the White House is looking for olive branches rather than bureaucratic warfare.  Lisa Heinzerling, an advocate for aggressive regulatory expansion to combat global warming, has resigned:

One of the Obama administration’s most aggressive officials on global warming regulations is stepping down from her post at the Environmental Protection Agency.

Lisa Heinzerling, the head of EPA’s policy office, will return to her position as a Georgetown University law professor at the end of the year, said EPA spokesman Brendan Gilfillan.

Within EPA, Heinzerling is one of the more dogmatic proponents of regulating greenhouse gases to the maximum extent possible under the Clean Air Act.

There are two camps within the agency on climate, said an environmental advocate who spoke on background. The Heinzerling camp, with the mind-set that, “we have the law on our side; let’s go get them.” In the other camp are Administrator Lisa Jackson and EPA air chief Gina McCarthy, who are trying to maintain the support of the White House and Congress.

The question will be whether Heinzerling left on her own steam or got pushed out the door.  Even if it was her own decision, it may have come after losing the fight to run roughshod over Congress and impose the equivalent of carbon taxes through regulation.  A Republican House appears poised to strip the EPA of funding if it exceeds what the GOP considers its Congressional mandate, which means an end to regulatory innovation for the next two years, at least.  There isn’t much point in sticking around for Heinzerling under those conditions.

If she got pushed, then it sends a stronger signal that the White House may have decided to forgo a constitutional battle with Congress over regulatory expansion as a substitute for legislation.  This shows the importance of winning the House in the midterms.  The Senate won’t be able to add spending rejected by the House because Republicans will have a substantial majority to block it in conference reports.  Anything defunded by the House will stay defunded, and despite some of the tough talk from the Obama administration before the midterms on pursuing regulatory solutions, the White House has apparently reached the obvious conclusion.

We will know more when Obama appoints Heinzerling’s successor. If the next appointee is an advocate of aggressive regulatory expansion, then Heinzerling’s departure won’t have been an olive branch at all.


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

Comment pages: 1 2

Thank goodness. Is it too much to hope that Carol Browner will be next?

KingGold on November 5, 2010 at 10:55 AM

, the White House has apparently reached the obvious conclusion.

yep and that is that “We (The People) Won”

ted c on November 5, 2010 at 10:58 AM

is obama using his 8 days abroad to purge some lefty appointments and veer towards the center?

DrW on November 5, 2010 at 10:59 AM

If the next appointee is an advocate of aggressive regulatory expansion, then Heinzerling’s departure won’t have been an olive branch at all.

I’m sure there are many, many more AGW and Gaia disciples up there to choose from.

ted c on November 5, 2010 at 10:59 AM

I guess she’s not thrilled at the prospects of testifying before one of Congressman Issa’s committee hearings.

You can run, but you can’t hide. A subpoena will find you.

fogw on November 5, 2010 at 11:00 AM

Things that make you go ‘hhhhhmmmmmmmm’.

Skandia Recluse on November 5, 2010 at 11:00 AM

The Senate won’t be able to add spending rejected by the House because Republicans will have a substantial majority to block it in conference reports. Anything defunded by the House will stay defunded

Those are some sweet, sweet words.

Vashta.Nerada on November 5, 2010 at 11:00 AM

is obama using his 8 days abroad to purge some lefty appointments and veer towards the center?
make some more lefty appointments.
DrW on November 5, 2010 at 10:59 AM

deck chairs.

ted c on November 5, 2010 at 11:00 AM

Maybe it’s because they don’t want her under oath before Congress?

Rocks on November 5, 2010 at 11:01 AM

The goons under the bus go THUMP THUMP THUMP…

fusionaddict on November 5, 2010 at 11:02 AM

Why not? She has nothing to do now.

Akzed on November 5, 2010 at 11:02 AM

I’ll begin to believe that things are changing only after all of the Czars are gone.

landlines on November 5, 2010 at 11:03 AM

She gets two weeks of time in front of the paper shredder before she departs….

delete c:/
Delete inbox

ted c on November 5, 2010 at 11:03 AM

Defund the czars.

either orr on November 5, 2010 at 11:03 AM

Boy, Rick Perry was scathing today about the inconsistencies via the EPA in Texas.

Frankly, he made a ton of sense.

AnninCA on November 5, 2010 at 11:04 AM

A Republican House appears poised to strip the EPA of funding if it exceeds what the GOP considers its Congressional mandate

I suggest they strip the EPA of funding if it exceeds its constitutional mandate. Oops, there isn’t one.

Vashta.Nerada on November 5, 2010 at 11:05 AM

Who would be more of an expert on the climate than a…law professor.

Oh well, no matter how much and how bad these types fail in the real world, they always have the fall back of suckering parents out of tens of thousands per year, for that Georgetown “education.”

MNHawk on November 5, 2010 at 11:05 AM

Don’t get too excited. I hear she’s about to be replaced by Walter Peck.

/

Doughboy on November 5, 2010 at 11:05 AM

Olive branch? Or tacit admission of dishonesty? I’m kind of leaning toward the latter.

gryphon202 on November 5, 2010 at 11:05 AM

Maybe it’s because they don’t want her under oath before Congress?

Rocks on November 5, 2010 at 11:01 AM

That’s my call, too.
Go git her anyway !

pambi on November 5, 2010 at 11:06 AM

Even if it is an olive branch, I’d still like to pursue defunding the EPA.

myrenovations on November 5, 2010 at 11:06 AM

I’ll begin to believe that things are changing only after all of the Czars are gone.

landlines on November 5, 2010 at 11:03 AM

Yes.

Regardless of who leaves, it’s time for the GOP to take a chainsaw to the budget and strip the EPA of its funding, regardless of what the WH does.

Fallen Sparrow on November 5, 2010 at 11:06 AM

Upon reflection, I’m going with the conclusion that activist zealots have lost confidence in Obama thinking that he lacks the testosterone to go to war with congress, and the zealots believe their cause is best advanced another way.

The zealots want war and Obama is content to enjoy the perks and retire with his place in the history books.

Skandia Recluse on November 5, 2010 at 11:08 AM

Don’t get too excited. I hear she’s about to be replaced by Walter Peck.

It’s true, Mr. Mayor…this man has no dick.

fusionaddict on November 5, 2010 at 11:08 AM

The EPA, IMO, is one of the MAJOR obstacles to bringing jobs and manufacturing back to the US. Defund it, pass the FairTax, and watch our economy soar.

ornery_independent on November 5, 2010 at 11:10 AM

Upon reflection, I’m going with the conclusion that activist zealots have lost confidence in Obama thinking that he lacks the testosterone to go to war with congress, and the zealots believe their cause is best advanced another way.

Skandia Recluse on November 5, 2010 at 11:08 AM

Unfortunately, that means the courts.

Vashta.Nerada on November 5, 2010 at 11:11 AM

Oddly enough I just took a phone survey from PPP asking what I thought about the EPA and it’s agenda. My answers would have brought a frown to Lisa Heinzerling’s face. For good measure I took the survey as an 18 to 29 year old Hispanic female with multiple graduate degrees making over $250K per year registered as a Democrat.

Oldnuke on November 5, 2010 at 11:13 AM

Heinzerling is stupid, but she’s not dumb. A Republican House means her ideas are dead in the water.

GarandFan on November 5, 2010 at 11:14 AM

Get that bus undercarriage ready for a whole slew full of folk who gonna get thrown under it!

pilamaye on November 5, 2010 at 11:14 AM

The EPA, IMO, is one of the MAJOR obstacles to bringing jobs and manufacturing back to the US. Defund it, pass the FairTax, and watch our economy soar.

ornery_independent on November 5, 2010 at 11:10 AM

Does anyone understand how their regs are much worse on manufacturing than the regs themselves? They swing the door wide open for ambulance chasers and nefarious lawsuits which if filed in certain jurisdictions ALWAYS bring huge awards founded on nothing more than moocher, eat the rich jurors.

You are correct, defund then dispose of the EPA altogether, THEN take aim at OSHA and BOEM!

Kermit on November 5, 2010 at 11:15 AM

Lisa Heinzerling, the head of EPA’s policy office, will return to her position as a Georgetown University law professor at the end of the year, said EPA spokesman Brendan Gilfillan.
Within EPA, Heinzerling is one of the more dogmatic proponents of regulating greenhouse gases to the maximum extent possible under the Clean Air Act.

I’m a simple man, and I don’t understand this. Although it’s a positioin in “EPA’s policy office,” I regard the EPA as largely a science-related agency. Why the h*ll is a law professor in a prominent position in a science-related federal agency? I just did a quick check online. Here’s her CV from her page at Georgetown:

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/Heinzerling/About_Me/CV_March_2008.pdf

She graduated from Princeton with a degree in–wait for it–philosophy.

And she’s charged with dictating policy in an agency that could crush our energy industry? Sorry, Charlie. I want men and women of science in these positions.

BuckeyeSam on November 5, 2010 at 11:16 AM

It isn’t about the personnel, its about the apparatus, itself: remember that the EPA has been going after already let coal mining permits, and floated the lovely idea of going after ammunition just a few months ago.

The States already have similar organizations to protect their environment, and if they want to work across State lines then the States can do that… the EPA was unable to execute the ‘Superfund’ properly, left some of the worst areas unattended to, seeks to stop utilization of States resources in an effort to protect ‘endangered’ species so as to stop economic expansion and now plays games with coal.

This was NEVER a useful agency. Stop the funding and the employees will go and the GAO can take its assets and sell them so we at least get some revenue from its equipment, buildings and property. We could use the revenue and lose the money sink at the same time. The States can and should handle this if they want to… that is what federalism is all about.

ajacksonian on November 5, 2010 at 11:17 AM

Paper shredders in overdrive today.

visions on November 5, 2010 at 11:17 AM

Oh well, no matter how much and how bad these types fail in the real world, they always have the fall back of suckering parents out of tens of thousands per year, for that Georgetown “education.”

MNHawk on November 5, 2010 at 11:05 AM

isn’t that interesting. Several of these “elites” now retreat to the wonderful and cozy confines of the academic world. It’s another world unto itself where they set the prices (tuition), compete for the grants, get the tenure, pontificate and then merely escape for 2 years to foist similarly onerous policies upon the rest of us that universities do in every state.

Most universities–and the economical paradigms used—are a direct threat to liberty. Why do we allow these ideas to be incubated under “academic freedom” and then suffer underneath them when these people enter the government sector?

ted c on November 5, 2010 at 11:18 AM

Olive branch? More like a three card monte street hustle.

bloviator on November 5, 2010 at 11:20 AM

Her departure is good news. Not as good as the departure of “Senator Ma’am” – who, btw will still be committee chair on the Senate side, would have been. The fight to shut this green idiocy down is still going to take a while.

Wind Rider on November 5, 2010 at 11:20 AM

I don’t think Obama plans on moving center at all.
The administration may “say” that in front of the camera…but the prevailing attitudes coming from the left,including Obama,is that this mid-term disaster is due to the racism and incompetence of the American people:

Vanity Fair editor:

although this being America, there’s an attendant hatred for Obama that has more to do with race than anything else. What makes today’s fury more worrying is the fact that angry right-wing extremists tend to carry guns in disproportionate numbers to their liberal counterparts.

A distinguished colleague of mine likens the wiggy mood of the nation to that of a hormonal teenager. What do you call an electorate that seems prone to acting out irrationally, is full of inchoate rage, and is constantly throwing fits and tantrums? You call it teenaged.

According to the liberal elites….when Obama came into office on a wave of support from the electorate…..America had finally woken up.
Now that he has been seriously repudiated for his failed agenda…..the electorate is nothing more than a bunch of racist,hormonal teenagers pitching a fit.

Obama:60 minutes with Steve Croft

After a suffering a “shellacking” in the midterm elections, President Obama acknowledges what many have seen as his chief weakness – failing to sell the importance of several legislative milestones to the American people.

“Making an argument that people can understand,” Mr. Obama continued, “I think that we haven’t always been successful at that. And I take personal responsibility for that. And it’s something that I’ve got to examine carefully … as I go forward.”

..So what Obama and the democrats take away from their mid-term disaster is simply the American public is just to stupid to appreciate Obama’s greatness and all he has done for us.

You just can’t fix stupid.

…2012 is looking real good for Conservatives.

Baxter Greene on November 5, 2010 at 11:20 AM

It somehow seems fitting to be reading about this at Hot Air, complete with “whether Heinzerling left on her own steam” figure of speech.

In the meantime methinks we’ll learn there’s still a lot of room under that bus over the next few post-election weeks.

Drained Brain on November 5, 2010 at 11:20 AM

She should still be brought in to testify under oath and tell who gave her husband’s ‘green’ business a big govt contract.

Sporty1946 on November 5, 2010 at 11:21 AM

, the White House has apparently reached the obvious conclusion.
yep and that is that “We (The People) Won”

ted c on November 5, 2010 at 10:58 AM

…but the battle wages on. I would not put it past Obama to have a pow-wow with Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro about ways to circumvent the electorate. He’s playing nice now, but wait a month or two and he’s bound to change his tune. He’s an Alinskyite through and through.

kscheuller on November 5, 2010 at 11:23 AM

I hear Al Gore is available :o)

IowaWoman on November 5, 2010 at 11:23 AM

I think this headline may provide a clue:

Environmental agencies brace themselves for aggressive investigations after expected Republican majority in midterms

Maybe she resigned so she wouldn’t be the subject of these hearings when the new improved GOP majority take their seats. I don’t know, but does their subpoena power extend to Georgetown U or is it restricted to current employees?

Buy Danish on November 5, 2010 at 11:23 AM

More of this please!

Kevin Jennings, what say you?

roy_batty on November 5, 2010 at 11:24 AM

And while we’re at it, defang the EPA altogether. Better yet-get rid of it ENTIRELY.
The EPA has done nothing but cost us ALL MONEY.
For instance, the elimination from S from diesel fuel has resulted in the retention of more water in the fuel, therefore allowing algae to grow in the fuel tanks of vehicles that use it.
Which means your myriad of fuel filters (another gift from govt regulations)in diesel engines, especially semis, are constantly clogging up.
And if you think you can clean out your fuel tank & eliminate the algae: WRONG.
Bcs it grows in the fuel tanks of every business that sells diesel fuel.
My husband has been spending oodles of $$ constantly buying fuel filters on our semi bcs of this problem.
And it comes courtesy of the GOVERNMENT & their invasive CAFE standards.
Be assured, the cost is being passed onto you, the consumer.
Bcs so many things you buy involve the trucking industry as well as diesel fuel in general.

Badger40 on November 5, 2010 at 11:25 AM

If the EPA tries this, defund the whole agency.

Leave enviromental regulation to the States.

mockmook on November 5, 2010 at 11:25 AM

“we have the law on our side; let’s go get them.”

No, you have falsified data and the power of a corrupt government on your side honey.
Get lost corrupt Marxist hag.

darwin on November 5, 2010 at 11:25 AM

Oh as an aside, strip the EPA’s funding anyway.

roy_batty on November 5, 2010 at 11:26 AM

Better link with more details here.

Buy Danish on November 5, 2010 at 11:26 AM

Environmental agencies brace themselves for aggressive investigations after expected Republican majority in midterms

Maybe she resigned so she wouldn’t be the subject of these hearings when the new improved GOP majority take their seats. I don’t know, but does their subpoena power extend to Georgetown U or is it restricted to current employees?

Buy Danish on November 5, 2010 at 11:23 AM

Environmental agencies SHOULD be investigated.
They are making a living off of suing govt agencies through the abuse of Equal Access to Justice funds & other govt monies.
The govt is cutting checks to these agencies & the govt doesn’t even keep track anymore of just how much $$ they write checks for.
You cannot believe the millions & millions of dollars that are given to these ‘non-profit’ agencies.
It is absolutely criminal & should be investigated.

Badger40 on November 5, 2010 at 11:27 AM

Just sweeping up dust bunnies, getting ready for that eighteen month long campaign season that is coming up.

Limerick on November 5, 2010 at 11:28 AM

BuckeyeSam on November 5, 2010 at 11:16 AM

It has never been about science. It has been about politics from day one. It has been about swinging the door wide open to lawsuits, attorney profits and whacko filed court injunctions for some decades.

Kermit on November 5, 2010 at 11:29 AM

Leave enviromental regulation to the States.

mockmook on November 5, 2010 at 11:25 AM

THIS

Badger40 on November 5, 2010 at 11:29 AM

Her replacement will be someone more in line with Browner’s view. And I doubt she was pushed. With a GOP majority in the House, the thrill was gone. Why go through the motions with no chance to achieve your goal?

Obama will still try to use executive authority to bypass congress where he can. If he can.

cartooner on November 5, 2010 at 11:29 AM

Obama is a hard core Marxist and for his ilk the “center” simply doesn’t exist.

rplat on November 5, 2010 at 11:33 AM

My bet: She resigned, but Obama will claim it’s his olive branch, then try something sneaky (like, with the UN).

Defund EPA regardless. Just defund it. Defund it now.

petefrt on November 5, 2010 at 11:36 AM

The damage is done. Getting rid of her isn’t going to reverse it.

Blake on November 5, 2010 at 11:37 AM

Heinzerling is stupid, but she’s not dumb. A Republican House means her ideas are dead in the water.

GarandFan on November 5, 2010 at 11:14 AM

Can you imagine a person so dogmatically leftist that they make Lisa Jackson sound like the centrist Voice of Reason? Jackson’s a nutcase of the left fringe. This person must be off of the radar left.

Jaibones on November 5, 2010 at 11:38 AM

Are the 2 articles connected- did Heinzerling push for the loan to Solyndra, maybe push Obama to go out to CA for a PR campaign and today it comes out that Solyndra is scaling back and letting people go?

journeyintothewhirlwind on November 5, 2010 at 11:42 AM

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/Heinzerling/About_Me/CV_March_2008.pdf

She graduated from Princeton with a degree in–wait for it–philosophy.

….
BuckeyeSam on November 5, 2010 at 11:16 AM

Side note…I heard a study this morning about the political contributions of Ivy League schools. Not surprisingly, they contribute overwhelmingly to ‘rats, but just guess which elite university sits atop that pile as the MOST overwhelmingly liberal…

Yup, you guessed it…it’s Princeton.

ornery_independent on November 5, 2010 at 11:42 AM

She’s off discovering ways of creating gold from base metals.

Hening on November 5, 2010 at 11:43 AM

“Heckuva job Heinzy”

ornery_independent on November 5, 2010 at 11:44 AM

The Heinzerling camp, with the mind-set that, “we have the law on our side; let’s go get them.” In the other camp are Administrator Lisa Jackson and EPA air chief Gina McCarthy, who are trying to maintain the support of the White House and Congress.

I have a feeling the EPA has a lot to hide on this issue and she may be getting out before it hits the fan. But it was the paragraph quoted above that is interesting to me. That sounds like Jackson and McCarthy trying to save themselves from the new political landscape by portraying themselves as “the other camp.” The only signal I see from all this is fear of being found out. I say the GOP should cut their budget so deeply that we’ll find out about their real priorities.

Done That on November 5, 2010 at 11:50 AM

The question will be whether Heinzerling left on her own steam or got pushed out the door. Even if it was her own decision, it may have come after losing the fight to run roughshod over Congress and impose the equivalent of carbon taxes through regulation.

She is running of her own accord, but it is to avoid having to offer sworn testimony on Global Warming. Proof versus belief is hard to swear to under oath.

I believe in God, but I don’t think I can provide you enough verifiable documented proof under oath, it is my faith.

barnone on November 5, 2010 at 11:50 AM

The paper shredders are not working 24/7

Lisa Jackson said Browner leave no paper trails evah. Just look it up
” This coordinated effort, led by Carol Browner, to leave no paper trail of the deliberations within the

seven on November 5, 2010 at 11:52 AM

Can you imagine a person so dogmatically leftist that they make Lisa Jackson sound like the centrist Voice of Reason? Jackson’s a nutcase of the left fringe. This person must be off of the radar left.
Jaibones on November 5, 2010 at 11:38 AM

Exactly. And I’m not buying the suggestion that Lisa Jackson wants to work with Congress.

Buy Danish on November 5, 2010 at 11:53 AM

Kevin Jennings, what say you?

roy_batty on November 5, 2010 at 11:24 AM

he musta sprained his thumb on a (rim) job or something…

ted c on November 5, 2010 at 11:53 AM

Just sweeping up dust bunnies, getting ready for that eighteen month long campaign season that is coming up.

Limerick on November 5, 2010 at 11:28 AM

Yup.

Jaibones on November 5, 2010 at 11:56 AM

Leave the EPA alone.

Just drag them infront of hearings and kindly allow them to explain global warming from a hard science viewpoint. Show their experiments on CO2 and findings.

This is why she left. She won’t have to face hearings.
Have them explain how they used data that was false to accept their findings.

The EPA will say the IPCC said that the WWF said that the jungles are shriveling or sumptin’

seven on November 5, 2010 at 11:56 AM

Hening on November 5, 2010 at 11:43 AM

Right, alchemy is almost as hard as stimulating the economy with “green” jobs.

petefrt on November 5, 2010 at 11:56 AM

The damage is done. Getting rid of her isn’t going to reverse it.

Blake on November 5, 2010 at 11:37 AM

The damage was done when the agency was created in the 1st place.
The EPA has made a lot of the things you do & buy cost a lot more than they ever used to.
The EPA has caused all of us with the capacity to store more than 1300 gallons of fuels or oils (i.e. soybean oil, etc) to purchase &/or build very costly containment apparatus’.
1300 gallons is not that much.
We haven’t been filling any of our fuel tanks for several years with anything bcs fuels have been so high we can only afford to get the stuff when we need it right then & there.
It’s only a matter of time when they come out to pick on all of us out in the country on our farms & ranches by using Google Earth to spy on us.
The cheapest containment efforts I’ve heard about are using fiberglass water tanks at a cost of about $2500/small operation.
Don’t know about you, but that’s a lot of $$ for me.
Also, do you know the EPA demands extremely costly anal ways of dealing with farm waste on feed lots?
If you feed lot over 350 beef cattle or so, you are expected to put in a minimum of $50,000 for a containment system & it doesn’t matter whether you’re close to a water source or not.
I believe in protecting the environment, but that is not what the EPA does.
They destroy small agriculture (& other businesses) so that no one can afford to play but the huge corporations.
Nuff said.
I’m still waiting for their dust regulation Nazis to visit us in the country.
They said they are coming.

Badger40 on November 5, 2010 at 11:57 AM

I’m not buying the suggestion that Lisa Jackson wants to work with Congress.

Buy Danish on November 5, 2010 at 11:53 AM

They have long since hidden that nitwit from public view. In Washington, utterly dominated by the center-left to the left fringe, she sounds almost normal. Here in America, people listen to her and start laughing.

Jaibones on November 5, 2010 at 11:58 AM

T

hank goodness. Is it too much to hope that Carol Browner will be next?

KingGold on November 5, 2010 at 10:55 AM

My sentiments exactly. Sadly, I think I recall reading a rumor Browner is shortly to be appointed to a bigger policy job within the WH, not out of it. “Socialists unite!”, I guess.

MTF on November 5, 2010 at 12:01 PM

Close the doors on this faux agency and shutter the window.

Kissmygrits on November 5, 2010 at 12:05 PM

Maybe it’s because they don’t want her under oath before Congress?

Rocks on November 5, 2010 at 11:01 AM

Quitting doesn’t get her out of the cross hairs of congress. Think baseball drug scandal.

chemman on November 5, 2010 at 12:07 PM

It’s tough work peddling a lie …

tarpon on November 5, 2010 at 12:07 PM

Don’t get too excited. I hear she’s about to be replaced by Walter Peck.

/

Doughboy on November 5, 2010 at 11:05 AM

I’m gonna miss her. I’m gonna get her a nice fruit basket…

Lanceman on November 5, 2010 at 12:09 PM

If I knew nothing about this woman, just seeing those glasses I would know right away she is a socialist intent on destroying this country.

angryed on November 5, 2010 at 12:11 PM

Those who can, do. Those who can’t head back to their ivory tower and spew their garbage at impressionable young adults.

reaganaut on November 5, 2010 at 12:15 PM

I’m still waiting for their dust regulation Nazis to visit us in the country.
They said they are coming.

Badger40 on November 5, 2010 at 11:57 AM

I feel your pain. The area I live in in NE Arizona is cattle country. The problem is we get two very windy seasons. Average winds of 30 – 40 mph with gusts up to 55 – 60 mph. As a result the 40 freeway gets shut down all the time because of blowing dust. Its the nature of the area. The a&&hats will still want us to do things that aren’t doable.

chemman on November 5, 2010 at 12:15 PM

One down, a couple hundred to go.

I’m smiling now.

But it’s only a start.

The CO2 endangerment finding has to be publicly and thoroughly discredited.

JEM on November 5, 2010 at 12:16 PM

I’m gonna miss her. I’m gonna get her a nice fruit basket…

Lanceman on November 5, 2010 at 12:09 PM

That was sprayed with pesticides? :-)

tims472 on November 5, 2010 at 12:17 PM

Leave the women at the EPA alone. Just set their thermostats this winter at 50 degrees. They can take a lead in saving energy and wear sweaters. Of course winters are now warm.

seven on November 5, 2010 at 12:18 PM

I wonder what’s in her garbage.

Buy Danish on November 5, 2010 at 12:18 PM

Good riddance.

It figures she is going back to Georgetown where Andy Stern is a fellow. What a cesspool.

WannabeAnglican on November 5, 2010 at 12:20 PM

Oh no. Was she the one that had written regulations on country road and farming dust? Dust is killing us. It must be regulated to save the children that escaped abortions.

seven on November 5, 2010 at 12:21 PM

Yep, L.J. is a real moderate:

[Lisa Jackson] reiterated that the Obama administration prefers that climate change be address by Congress through broad, economy-wide limits on climate-changing pollution. But the EPA finding of endangerment prepares for possible regulatory action if Congress fails to act…

Soft tyranny.

Buy Danish on November 5, 2010 at 12:28 PM

Look at the photo accompanying this article. These hair styles can only be created and produced by women-haters. As to the substance of the article, giving Obama even the benefit of the doubt is absurd.

Mae on November 5, 2010 at 12:32 PM

I am having trouble getting past why a lawyer is over a government agency that should be run by a scientist. Dumb me, I always thought that one would want someone who knew what they were doing running an outfit.

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, years ago, while working in a hospital blood bank, an FDA assessor came in to do an inspection on our transfusion service. When I asked him where he went to school, assuming he was a Laboratorian…he said he didn’t have a degree. He was a fired air traffic controller from the days when Reagan fired them all. Go figure…..

norm1111 on November 5, 2010 at 12:38 PM

The incoming House should fund the EPA for a week at a time — and occasionally forget a week.

cthulhu on November 5, 2010 at 12:39 PM

Pardon the pun, but the only CO2 regulation we need is on the hot air these enviro-kooks spew.

infidel4life on November 5, 2010 at 12:40 PM

This looks like good news on the surface, if “Heinzerling is one of the more dogmatic proponents of regulating greenhouse gases to the maximum extent possible under the Clean Air Act.” and “In the other camp are Administrator Lisa Jackson and EPA air chief Gina McCarthy, who are trying to maintain the support of the White House and Congress.”

But it was Lisa Jackson who promulgated the “rule” (without the consent of the Senate) that power plants emitting more than 250,000 tons/yr of CO2 (equivalent to about 50 megawatts of power from natural gas, less from coal) must employ “Best Available Control Technology”, even though no one really knows what that is for CO2, not even the EPA, not even engineers who try to design CO2 capture systems.

As a result of this vaguely-defined “rule”, permitting for new power plants in the USA has ground to a screeching halt, because CO2 “control” is tremendously expensive, and reduces net power output by 20 to 30%, and no power companies want to invest tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in control technology that might be rendered useless if a future EPA Administrator (in 2013 under a Republican President) undoes a “rule”. So the entire electric power industry is in limbo, wondering what Lisa Jackson will do next.

If Lisa Jackson is truly “trying to maintain the support of the White House and Congress”, she was thus far loyal to the White House and the CURRENT House (which passed Cap and Trade) but not to the CURRENT Senate. The next, Republican-controlled House will certainly NOT pass Cap and Trade, and might try to de-fund EPA, but can the new House FORCE Lisa Jackson to rescind the CO2 “rule”?

The EPA does perform some useful functions, with sensible regulations on REAL pollutants which have improved the quality of air and water over the last 40 years at reasonable cost, under laws established by Congress, but what needs to be done to force Lisa Jackson to rescind her unilateral CO2 rule? Could the new House threaten to de-fund the EPA COMPLETELY if the CO2 Rule remains in place, and could the threat be carried out? If the EPA is funded through the end of FY 2011 (September) through a “continuing resolution”, could the threat by the new House only be carried out next October?

If Lisa Jackson is “trying to maintain the support of the White House and Congress”, by next January this will become mutually exclusive, since the White House and the House of Representatives will be at cross-purposes. Which will she choose?

Steve Z on November 5, 2010 at 12:43 PM

The fact that Bambi is extending olive branches should not surprise anyone.He has been playing the Clenis playbook since day one.
Manufacture crisis(thanks to the boss emeritis for that),do nothing while Democraps make a mess,do nothing while Republicans clean up the mess, take credit for the clean up,run for re-election.
All the “I’m sorry I voted for him” idiots will vote for him again.

DDT on November 5, 2010 at 12:50 PM

If Lisa Jackson is “trying to maintain the support of the White House and Congress”, by next January this will become mutually exclusive, since the White House and the House of Representatives will be at cross-purposes. Which will she choose?

Steve Z on November 5, 2010 at 12:43 PM

She will choose to keep her job, because nobody else will hire her if she resigns.

Congress can and must pass a reauthorization of the Clean Air Act that overturns the CO2 court ruling and makes it clear that CO2 is not a pollutant that the EPA can regulate under the CAA. I want to see the House pass this bill and make all those Democrats in Red states who are up for reelection in 2012 vote for it. If Obama vetoes it, then we have our first issue for the 2012 campaign.

rockmom on November 5, 2010 at 12:56 PM

I think this headline may provide a clue:

Environmental agencies brace themselves for aggressive investigations after expected Republican majority in midterms

Maybe she resigned so she wouldn’t be the subject of these hearings when the new improved GOP majority take their seats. I don’t know, but does their subpoena power extend to Georgetown U or is it restricted to current employees?

Buy Danish on November 5, 2010 at 11:23 AM

Could they subpoena Lisa Jackson to defend her vaguely-defined CO2 Rule before a House committee, and let her ‘splain what a power company needs to do to comply with it, and how much it will cost? What is Best Available Control Technology for a harmless and necessary gas no one ever tried to control before, which makes up 10% of the emissions of a power plant? Let her ‘splain that compliance would reduce the power output of all coal- and gas-fired power plants by 20 to 30%, and where would the missing power come from? Nuclear? Tell that to Harry Reid, the King of Yucca Mountain!

Steve Z on November 5, 2010 at 12:58 PM

Yep, L.J. is a real moderate… Soft tyranny.

Buy Danish on November 5, 2010 at 12:28 PM

She’s a quack with an affirmative action science degree, emphasis on Poli Sci.

Jaibones on November 5, 2010 at 1:01 PM

Congress can and must pass a reauthorization of the Clean Air Act that overturns the CO2 court ruling and makes it clear that CO2 is not a pollutant that the EPA can regulate under the CAA. I want to see the House pass this bill and make all those Democrats in Red states who are up for reelection in 2012 vote for it. If Obama vetoes it, then we have our first issue for the 2012 campaign.

rockmom on November 5, 2010 at 12:56 PM

Sounds like a great idea, and maybe some Democrats in COAL states (MT, SD, ND, PA, OH, WV) will vote for it. If Obama vetoes it, it WOULD make a great issue for 2012, but the one drawback of this strategy is that it’s SLOW.

The power plant construction industry is hurting badly NOW, and some of the permits for existing plants are up for renewal NOW, and what if we start getting rolling blackouts from missing power within the next two years? I work for a company whose main business is helping power plants get permits, which is hurting NOW…can the new House do something in January that could give the electric power industry some hope for 2011, not 2013?

Steve Z on November 5, 2010 at 1:09 PM

Comment pages: 1 2