New EPA chief: Can everybody please “stop talking about environmental regulations killing jobs?”

posted at 10:21 am on July 31, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

…How ’bout, no? Via the Washington Post:

The new head of the Environmental Protection Agency told an audience at Harvard Law School on Tuesday that cutting carbon pollution will “feed the economic agenda of this country” and vowed to work with industry leaders on shaping policies aimed at curbing global warming.

“Climate change will not be resolved overnight,” EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told the 310-member audience. “But it will be engaged over the next three years. That I can promise you.”

McCarthy made a full-throated defense of her agency’s right to address greenhouse-gas emissions and other pollutants, saying that air-quality regulations and environmental cleanup efforts have already produced economic benefits in the United States.

“Can we stop talking about environmental regulations killing jobs, please?” she asked, prompting loud applause. “We need to embrace cutting-edge technology as a way to spark business innovation.” …

“EPA cannot dictate solutions,” McCarthy said. “We have to engage.”

But that’s just it. The EPA does dictate these so-called solutions, which are not well-thought-out solutions so much as they are the top-down societal engineering of zealous big-government bureaucrats. And heck, I’m not even talking about the bipartisan opposition to the Obama administration’s war on coal (which, by the way, is already resulting in job losses), because that is only the tiniest tip of the iceberg of everything the Environmental Protection Agency does and imposes upon the American people.

For these guys, there is no good environmental problem or dilemma that could possibly deserve a private-sector, private-property, free-market, or local-government solution — the federal government always does it better (which is strange, because the inefficiencies and unintended consequences of big-government oversight apply just as easily to environmental degradation as they do to everything else). They really don’t care about the onerous costs of compliance for businesses and individuals, nor the accompanying transaction costs, nor the overall costs to our economy, because the only costs that matter to them are what they’ve pre-decided are the environmental ones. Regulation is a noble means to their inarguably glorious ends, and the Obama administration has used bizarre rules and tactics to prosecute everyone from major companies to private individuals. What’s more, they’re increasingly getting in the way of state sovereignty, because they know better, of course:

The ALEC report showed that in President Obama’s first term, the number of times the agency has rejected state proposals or taken over state programs has skyrocketed.

“The agency has expanded its own prerogatives, at the expense of the states’ rightful authority,” the report said.

The report looked first at the EPA’s efforts to ensure states comply with the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act. During the second term of the George W. Bush administration, the EPA rejected state proposals a total of just 12 times. During the last four years, the Obama EPA rejected those proposals 95 times.

The EPA also initiated a total of 19 state-level takeovers in that time, something the EPA rarely did in the years preceding the Obama administration. …

“Sue and settle allows the EPA to replace input from the states with that from professional environmentalists,” the report said. It found the number of sue-and-settle cases has risen from 15 during the second term of the Clinton administration to 48 in Obama’s first term, producing $13 billion in annual regulatory costs.

And, bizarrely, the EPA is rather loath to reveal the methods behind their madness, too. Go figure:

As the Environmental Protection Agency moves forward with some of the most costly regulations in history, there needs to be greater transparency about the claimed benefits from these actions. Unfortunately, President Obama and the EPA have been unwilling to reveal to the American people the data they use to justify their multibillion-dollar regulatory agenda. …

We know this much: Virtually every major EPA air-quality regulation under President Obama has been justified by citing two sets of decades-old data from the Harvard Six Cities Study and the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Prevention Study II. The EPA uses the data to establish an association between fine-particulate emissions and mortality.

For two years, the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, of which I am the chairman, has sought to make this information available to the public. But the EPA has obstructed the committee’s request at every step. To date, the committee has sent six letters to the EPA and other top administration officials seeking the data’s release.


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

I hate these people. That is all.

gsherin on July 31, 2013 at 11:08 AM

Rest assured they hate you more.

darwin on July 31, 2013 at 11:12 AM

From AoSHQ:

Gee, wonder which former CIA asset will give us an excuse to invade yet another country, engage in crimes against humanity and war profiteering?

And when we shoot down your bullshit as fast as you can sling it, will Christian fundamentalist elements in our military stage another NBC attack on our nation?

You know, it really sucks that there’s nothing much of value in teabilly country to attack. We shouldn’t have to pay for the crimes of the “my god is bigger than your god” crowd.

But hey, keep disenfranchising minorities and desperately trying to control the sexuality of women. The rest of us humans will eventually push you 19th century cretins and your weaponized kids out of American life forever.

by commenter “Whoop” (saved for mockery)

Solaratov on July 31, 2013 at 12:39 PM

Maybe you should ask a lesbian. She’s married with three kids.

rrpjr on July 31, 2013 at 11:30 AM

And just how does that preclude her being a lesbian? Is it against the ‘lesbian canon of ethics’ for her to have a “beard”, just as male homosexuals do?

Homosexuals of either/both (rather dubious) sexes employ “beards” to divert attention from their deviance.

Solaratov on July 31, 2013 at 12:46 PM

She is just another crazed leftist who believes the destruction of American industry is a positive thing. Because she got hers.

pat on July 31, 2013 at 12:48 PM

Why do lesbians cut their hair so short? It seems like they want to look like men. I have sincerely always wondered this.

bluegill

simple – they don’t like their femininity. But apparently Pat (aka Gina) has a husband who thinks she’s smoking hot.

williampeck1958 on July 31, 2013 at 12:54 PM

Loud applause for that line at Harvard Law School? It can’t be!

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on July 31, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Gee, wonder which former CIA asset will give us an excuse to invade yet another country, engage in crimes against humanity and war profiteering?

And when we shoot down your bullshit as fast as you can sling it, will Christian fundamentalist elements in our military stage another NBC attack on our nation?

You know, it really sucks that there’s nothing much of value in teabilly country to attack. We shouldn’t have to pay for the crimes of the “my god is bigger than your god” crowd.

But hey, keep disenfranchising minorities and desperately trying to control the sexuality of women. The rest of us humans will eventually push you 19th century cretins and your weaponized kids out of American life forever.

by commenter “Whoop” (saved for mockery)

Solaratov on July 31, 2013 at 12:39 PM

Now, that is “weaponized” stupidity!

catsandbooks on July 31, 2013 at 1:04 PM

I love how all those windmills are soooo good for the environment… so says the EPA.

Got to love the selective enforcement of our government on those dreaded bird-choppers.

Turtle317 on July 31, 2013 at 1:30 PM

Why has Obama staffed his agencies with only minorities and sexual deviants? One would think he doesn’t like the majority of this country. I guess his wife was right about him.

“Barack knows that we are going to have to make sacrifices; we are going to have to change our conversation; we’re going to have to change our traditions, our history; we’re going to have to move into a different place as a nation.” ~ Michelle Obama, May 2008

SpiderMike on July 31, 2013 at 2:04 PM

“Virtually every major EPA air-quality regulation under President Obama has been justified by citing two sets of decades-old data from the Harvard Six Cities Study and the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Prevention Study II. The EPA uses the data to establish an association between fine-particulate emissions and mortality.”

Would the SCOTUS take the same view of the above as it did about the data justifying Sec-5 of the VRA?
If they value consistency, the EPA should be very concerned about a judicial challenge to their air-quality rules.

Another Drew on July 31, 2013 at 2:05 PM

Solaratov on July 31, 2013 at 12:39 PM

Hmmm, what are the chances that our “weaponized” kids couldn’t kick the azzes of these dang hippies?

Cindy Munford on July 31, 2013 at 2:10 PM

This is just some weapons-grade stupid right here.

gryphon202 on July 31, 2013 at 2:39 PM

yea! Let’s throw more money into the sun!

kirkill on July 31, 2013 at 2:43 PM

But apparently Pat (aka Gina) has a husband who thinks she’s smoking hot.

williampeck1958 on July 31, 2013 at 12:54 PM

Have you seen her husband? Would you want to?

yikes!

kirkill on July 31, 2013 at 2:46 PM

Badger40 on July 31, 2013 at 12:17 PM

Google FIFRA (Federal Fungicide, Insecticide, and Rodenticide Act). Scary stuff.

Certification and training regulations require pesticide applicators to meet certain training requirements before they apply pesticides labeled “for restricted use.” The purpose is to assure proper application of the pesticide and to ensure that restricted-entry provisions protecting the health of applicators and farm workers are met.

Labeling requirements control when and under what conditions pesticides can be applied, mixed, stored, loaded or used, fields can be reentered after application, and crops can be harvested. Requirements are also imposed on container specifications and disposal.

FIFRA provides EPA with the authority to oversee the sale and use of pesticides. However, because FIFRA does not fully preempt state/tribal or local law, each state/tribe and local government may also regulate pesticide use.

They say “oversee”, but what they really mean is “regulate/write rules/do what they want to”.

Another example of Congress giving EPA authority to do as it pleases.

weaselyone on July 31, 2013 at 2:55 PM

I love how all those windmills are soooo good for the environment… so says the EPA.

Got to love the selective enforcement of our government on those dreaded bird-choppers.

Turtle317 on July 31, 2013 at 1:30 PM

Yes.
Clearly in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918:

Establishment of a Federal prohibition, unless permitted by regulations, to “pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, cause to be shipped, deliver for transportation, transport, cause to be transported, carry, or cause to be carried by any means whatever, receive for shipment, transportation or carriage, or export, at any time, or in any manner, any migratory bird, included in the terms of this Convention . . . for the protection of migratory birds . . . or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird.” (16 U.S.C. 703)

I missed the Federal regulation permitting the killing of migratory birds by wind towers.

The military once asked for a regulation allowing the inadvertant slaying of migratory birds during live fire exercises and on shooting ranges. They were denied.

weaselyone on July 31, 2013 at 3:03 PM

Solaratov on July 31, 2013 at 12:39 PM

Hmmm, what are the chances that our “weaponized” kids couldn’t kick the azzes of these dang hippies?

Cindy Munford on July 31, 2013 at 2:10 PM

They wouldn’t even have to reload.

kirkill on July 31, 2013 at 3:04 PM

Just another example of why the deal that John McCain struck with Dingy Harry Reid to ‘avoid the nuclear option’ and permit the confirmation of Barack Obama’s nominees screwed over the entire country.

Athos on July 31, 2013 at 3:28 PM

professional environmentalists

Dang. Now I’m gonna have nightmares….

psrch on July 31, 2013 at 3:30 PM

Serious question-what would it take to make the EPA an advisory agency instead of regulatory?

hopeful on July 31, 2013 at 4:12 PM

ABOLISH THE . E P A !
.
Then … I’ll “stop talking about environmental regulations killing jobs.”

listens2glenn on July 31, 2013 at 4:19 PM

Her husband, Kenneth McCarey, works from home as a wholesale floral salesman…

there you go, match made in umm, the greenhouse.

kirkill on July 31, 2013 at 6:22 PM

Ya – let’s not talk about all the power plants, coal mines, oil rigs, refineries, etc etc etc that have been shut down because of EPA regs…..

dentarthurdent on July 31, 2013 at 6:42 PM

I think the authors of this piece need a lesson in proper pronoun usage.

They keep referring to this bureaucrat as “she”…

JohnGalt23 on July 31, 2013 at 10:33 AM

Is this utter fool a he or a she?

Schadenfreude on July 31, 2013 at 10:35 AM

It’s Pat.

yubley on July 31, 2013 at 10:51 AM

It’s “Q.”

fossten on July 31, 2013 at 8:54 PM

The he/she has began his/her clown show………..♥♥♥♥I just wuv this administration.♥♥♥

Why? Even though I choose not to watch cartoons…. with this ever luvin’show on the road, no need to.

If I wanted to. **_**

avagreen on August 1, 2013 at 9:52 AM

In EPA-speak, “engage” means intimidate, subjugate, pervert, fine, license, permit, do anything that prevents true economic, industrial or technical progress. Just another fascist Obama apparatchik ascends to the commissar-ship.

ironked on August 2, 2013 at 4:31 PM

Comment pages: 1 2