There’s a legitimate role for agencies like the EPA as an enforcement agency.

Hollowpoint on April 7, 2011 at 12:44 PM

I’m with Hollowpoint on this one. The EPA has done some good work, since many American rivers and lakes are cleaner than they were 40 years ago (when the EPA was established), and emissions of real air pollutants (lead, sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxides, particulates, and carbon MONoxide) have decreased while industrial production has increased. There’s nothing wrong with a Federal government agency trying to limit the emissions of pollutants by industry that can be harmful to the health of others, across state lines.

The “cap and trade” system the EPA uses on REAL pollutants has its benefits–a polluting industry can either install pollution control equipment and sell emission allowances, or not install pollution control and buy emission allowances. When it becomes cheaper to install pollution control equipment than pay fines, industries install the pollution control and the air becomes cleaner.

With real pollutants, which do have toxic effects on people, the control technology usually removes about 95 to 99% of the pollutant, and only adds a few percent to the price of a manufactured product.

EPA has over-reached with carbon dioxide, because it is NOT toxic (plants NEED it), the amounts emitted in flue gas are huge, and control technologies for power plants consume about 20 to 30% of the power generated, which would drastically increase power costs for no real benefit to human health.

If the House voted to de-fund the entire EPA in order to prevent enforcement of “rules” on CO2, some moderate Democrats might start thinking, “should we lose all the good things EPA does to force the issue on CO2, or should we prevent the EPA from imposing rules on CO2 so that it can continue work on real pollutants?”

EPA has no Congressional authority to regulate CO2, although previous Congresses have given it authority to regulate real pollutants. A vote to de-fund EPA would be a message to EPA: “Do ONLY what we explicitly authorized you to do, or nothing at all!”

So environmentalists can breathe a sigh of relief—but not a deep one.

…because the EPA doesn’t approve of carbon dioxide generation!

Steve Z on April 7, 2011 at 12:44 PM

The piecemeal approach allows the House to set the priorities so that if the Senate stalls on anything, then all the lower priority items get stalled, too.

That means that EPA, FCC, Ag, Ed, Energy, Labor, FDA…. can all get much lower priorities than DoD. Just tell everyone that it is piecemeal time and have the Senate be the one to gum up the works by trying to demand its priorities over the chamber that starts the funding process. Fun will be had by all! And each day they stall, it is more of the lower priority stuff facing longer and longer delays… go with DoD, Justice, State, USPTO, The Mint… anything in the Constitution goes before the ‘discretionary’ parts of the budget. Fund the necessary parts, first and somewhere around JUL the Senate will finally start to cave, because the 2012 piecemeal budget will be coming their way piece by piece….

The Dems belatedly see the writing on the wall as our president continues to tilt toward windmills…

Oh man, talk about mixing metaphors!

All I can think of now is “Mene mene tekel quixote”

Environmental Defense Fund president Fred Krupp told me on Monday. “The public wants clean air. They want to know that government regulation is keeping them safe from industrial pollution.”

Regulations don’t keep people safe, any more than a phone book places phone calls. Regs are a tool, which can be used for any purpose by their wielder. Environmental regs can easily be weapons against companies that don’t donate to the right candidates, or payoffs to favored contractors.

Thanks for reminding me not to offer a reasonable response to the serially stupid. I should’ve known better.

Hollowpoint on April 7, 2011 at 1:34 PM

Let me guess – you believe that the ATF does good work too, right? Because common sense gun regulation is needed in order to keep violent crime in check?

Thanks for reminding me not to offer a reasonable response to the serially stupid. I should’ve known better.

Hollowpoint on April 7, 2011 at 1:34 PM

That’s it? That’s your best shot, name calling? The last refuge of those who don’t know how to debate a topic?

I knew you couldn’t construct an actual argument on the subject.

Good golly, how in the world did this country ever survive before 1970. Imagine…

/

fossten on April 7, 2011 at 1:05 PM

Thanks for reminding me not to offer a reasonable response to the serially stupid. I should’ve known better.

The U.S. government’s lead envoy on climate change said the United Nations talks aimed at negotiating a binding treaty to curb global warming are based on “unrealistic” expectations that are “not doable.”

Todd Stern, the State Department official who heads the U.S. delegation at the 192-nation discussions, said that a meeting this week in Bangkok was “marked by struggles over the agenda” similar to “bickering over the shape of the negotiating table.”

like a move by Republicans to weaken EPA regulations on mercury emissions

Oh, how I love irony… Those curly fry light bulbs of which environmentalists are so fond can’t simply be thrown in the trash because of the potential for mercury contamination. So, really?

Hollowpoint on April 7, 2011 at 12:58 PM

Good golly, how in the world did this country ever survive before 1970. Imagine…

/

Well you sure showed me with that thoughtful retort…

There are interstate environmental issues that the federal government has a legitimate role in regulating, and someone has to enforce such laws, be it the EPA or FBI.

The problem is that Congress is allowing the EPA and the President to make regulations that are laws in all but name without first going through the legislative process as every other law must.

Hollowpoint on April 7, 2011 at 12:58 PM

Well you sure showed me, with that proof by assertion argument.

Total BS.

fossten on April 7, 2011 at 12:49 PM

Well you sure showed me with that thoughtful retort…

There are interstate environmental issues that the federal government has a legitimate role in regulating, and someone has to enforce such laws, be it the EPA or FBI.

The problem is that Congress is allowing the EPA and the President to make regulations that are laws in all but name without first going through the legislative process as every other law must.

There’s a legitimate role for agencies like the EPA as an enforcement agency.

Hollowpoint on April 7, 2011 at 12:44 PM

Total BS.

I blame the Koch Brothers and Big Oil…

– cr66

(you know its coming)

Seven Percent Solution on April 7, 2011 at 12:33 PM

Funny you bring up the Koch Brothers-the NY Times lied about them last week, and promptly got caught by Power Line:

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/pageoneplus/corrections.html

A March 31 editorial misstated donations by Charles and David Koch to Representative Mike Pompeo of Kansas. Their political action committee, employees of Koch Industries, their families and other supporters donated $79,500, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. The brothers did not personally donate $80,000.

John at Power Line wonders:

Perhaps the Times editorialists and reporters will learn a lesson about relying on left-wing web sites for their facts. The deeper question remains, however: as I asked Mr. Brisbane, is it really possible that the New York Times editorial writers carry out no fact checking whatsoever with respect to their editorials? Or do they consider reading far-left web sites like Think Progress to be “fact checking”? Mr. Brisbane publishes his column on Sunday; perhaps he will address this question in his next column.

Close down the government.

Don’t fund re-opening the EPA.

Problem solved.

ajacksonian on April 7, 2011 at 12:22 PM

Even better–pass a budget bill through the House with no funding for the EPA, then ask Dingy Harry to either pass it or shut down the government. If it fails in the Senate, blame the shutdown on Senate Democrats. If it passes the Senate, Obama has the choice between cutting soda-pop gas and funding the government, and let’s see where his priorities lie.

Rein in the EPA? How about eliminating it. They the legislators can then legislate what standards should be. That is after all their job, and it’s about time they started doing it. To much of this country is controlled by people who were never elected. In a representative democracy this is a real bad idea.

Tommy_G on April 7, 2011 at 12:20 PM

There’s a legitimate role for agencies like the EPA as an enforcement agency. The problem is that they independently make rules and regulations that are almost indistinguishable from law. Every rule and regulation they enforce should first have to be passed as a law.

Anyone obtuse enough to make a statement like that…

… is never going to reign in the EPA.

Seven Percent Solution on April 7, 2011 at 12:38 PM

Actually, he IS reigning. But he isn’t reining.

“If you’re complaining about the price of gas and you’re only getting 8 miles a gallon, you know,” Obama said laughingly. “You might want to think about a trade-in.”

Anyone obtuse enough to make a statement like that…

… is never going to reign in the EPA.

Rep. Dennis Cardoza, a California Democrat, told POLITICO earlier this week that there’s growing opinion among Democrats that EPA is becoming a “rogue agency,” adding that the White House needs to take action to curb the agency’s power.

What a load of hazardous waste. The EPA is entirely and 100% under the control of Abu Oumama; it’s him that is ‘rogue’, not one of his departments. I also prefer ‘tyrant’ to ‘rogue’.

PS Thank you for not writing it ‘reign’.

In the Senate on Wednesday, even Democrats who are typically backers of the Obama administration – like Max Baucus of Montana, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Carl Levin of Michigan – jumped on the anti-EPA bandwagon to endorse Democratic amendments to curtail the agency’s power. Those amendments were aimed at allowing vulnerable Democrats to take slaps at EPA that could protect them in upcoming elections.
Don’t get too enthused over the bipartisanship, of course. The Senate votes in particular were safe enough to cast. Harry Reid didn’t bring the bills to the floor until he was certain they wouldn’t pass cloture.

If 17 Senate Democrats voted against their party, that would only leave 53 – 17 = 36 Democrats voting against these measures. Unless some of them voted with the Republicans on one amendment, and some of them voted on a different amendment, so that the total number of “yeas” was less than 60 in all cases.

But if all 17 of those Democrats want to save their seats next year, many of whom come from coal states, won’t their voters want RESULTS? As in, all 17 of them vote with 47 Republicans to get 64 votes for cloture?

Which would dare Obama to veto the bill, and put the blame squarely where it belongs, on Obama’s EPA, who did an end-run around Congress.

Obama couldn’t get Cap’n Trade through even last year’s 59 D – 41 R Senate, so it’s time for politically savvy Senate Democrats to dump this in Obama’s lap.

Seven Percent Solution on April 7, 2011 at 12:33 PM

you mean ‘cr666′ ?