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

Where does Obama find them?

Cindy Munford on July 31, 2013 at 10:30 AM

We’ll shut up if you shut up!

Herb on July 31, 2013 at 10:31 AM

A longtime civil servant, McCarthy held the position of assistant administrator, U.S. EPA from 2009 to 2013. Prior to 2009, she was commissioner, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, 2004–2009. She has held several top positions in the civil service of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, including deputy secretary, Massachusetts Office of Commonwealth Development, 2003–2004 and undersecretary for policy, Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, 1999–2003.[13]

McCarthy graduated from the University of Massachusetts Boston with a Bachelor of Arts in Social Anthropology in 1976. In 1981 she received a joint Master of Science in Environmental Health Engineering and Planning and Policy from Tufts University.[3][13]

Bmore on July 31, 2013 at 10:33 AM

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

He looks like he can Ground and Pound…
Or is he a she?

Electrongod on July 31, 2013 at 10:34 AM

As long as these maggots are allowed to live in this country we are doomed.

Flange on July 31, 2013 at 10:34 AM

Meet the new boss, worse than the old boss. Let’s not speak the truth lest it contradict the job cremating libturd agenda.

stukinIL4now on July 31, 2013 at 10:34 AM

Is this utter fool a he or a she?

Schadenfreude on July 31, 2013 at 10:35 AM

OT, but very important – tyrants pulling lots of wool over your dumb heads.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration is declassifying documents about its telephone spying program to try to tamp down congressional opposition to domestic surveillance.

The documents will provide little solace, however, to Americans hoping to understand the legal analysis that underpinned the widespread surveillance.

And the redacted documents show only in broad strokes how National Security Agency officials use the data.

One particular type of analysis, called “hop analysis” is hinted at but never fully discussed. That allows to the government to search the phone records of not only suspected terrorists, but everyone who called them, everyone who called those people, and others who called them, as well.

With that authority, the government can search the records of millions of people in an investigation of one person.

Schadenfreude on July 31, 2013 at 10:36 AM

“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.” …

Not one job has been created by additional EPA regulation. STFU you commie tree-hugging ho.

Happy Nomad on July 31, 2013 at 10:36 AM

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

Yeah, it’s a secret. It’s like alchemy and stuff. You wouldn’t understand it, so we’re not going to tell you.

oldroy on July 31, 2013 at 10:36 AM

More Obama administration 1984-style doublespeak.

albill on July 31, 2013 at 10:37 AM

Everyone knows regulations don’t hinder anything.

Except abortion clinics of course. Regulating them will shut them down completely in violation of the Abortion on Demand Clause of the Constitution.

forest on July 31, 2013 at 10:37 AM

Can we please have the next Republican president completely abolish the EPA and any tentacles of it that have been spawned since its insipid inception?

Defenestratus on July 31, 2013 at 10:37 AM

Is this utter fool a he or a she?

Schadenfreude on July 31, 2013 at 10:35 AM

It’s one of the new “unisex” models.

oldroy on July 31, 2013 at 10:38 AM

Say, in the USA today, are there any non gay and non-black people left? Who pays taxes and who is represented in DC?

And, just for the pig of HA, you are the biggest bigot and racist, right after liblikeaslave. No one should care what you call anyone else.

Schadenfreude on July 31, 2013 at 10:38 AM

Is this utter fool a he or a she?

Schadenfreude on July 31, 2013 at 10:35 AM

It’s not polite to question these days. But I do wonder where Demonrats keep their attractive women. Because any of them you see in public are clearly part of the dog pound.

Happy Nomad on July 31, 2013 at 10:38 AM

It’s one of the new “unisex” models.

oldroy on July 31, 2013 at 10:38 AM

It’s a ‘beauty’.

Schadenfreude on July 31, 2013 at 10:39 AM

The one to replace Bernanke has a tad more ‘feminine’ to it.

Schadenfreude on July 31, 2013 at 10:39 AM

Schadenfreude on July 31, 2013 at 10:36 AM

That’s how we learned everyone in the world is only 6 steps away from knowing Kevin Bacon.

Flange on July 31, 2013 at 10:39 AM

Appointees like this sow is how Obama keeps himself above the fray.

antipc on July 31, 2013 at 10:41 AM

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. …

Why doesn’t Congress subpoena that information?

Murf76 on July 31, 2013 at 10:42 AM

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

bluegill on July 31, 2013 at 10:42 AM

That depends. Can you make environmental regulations stop killing jobs?

applebutter on July 31, 2013 at 10:44 AM

New EPA chief: Can everybody please stop demanding to see the results of my gender ID test?

Pork-Chop on July 31, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Typical lib – “Shut up”, she explained.

Reminder – Employment Prevention Agency.

22044 on July 31, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Obama’s definitely throwing a bone to the LGBT community.

Tater Salad on July 31, 2013 at 10:47 AM

McCarthy is married to Kenneth McCarey. They have three children, Daniel, Maggie and Julie.[13]

Bmore on July 31, 2013 at 10:47 AM

John McCain agrees completely.

Shut up, you earth soiling, Rand Paul voting, anti-immigration Republicans.
Why don’t you go get a job?

Uh? Oh.

applebutter on July 31, 2013 at 10:49 AM

The only people still pushing this global warming garbage are the communists.

Also, if she wants to cut down on carbon may I suggest she and all her carbon based communist buddies visit VHEMT.

darwin on July 31, 2013 at 10:50 AM

Where does Obama find them?

Cindy Munford on July 31, 2013 at 10:30 AM

In his donations rolo…

Schadenfreude on July 31, 2013 at 10:50 AM

I really detest Obama and his minions. Every time he appoints someone I think wow that person must have something wrong with them. Loony birds of a feather govern together.

neyney on July 31, 2013 at 10:51 AM

McCarthy is married to Kenneth McCarey. They have three children, Daniel, Maggie and Julie.[13]

Bmore on July 31, 2013 at 10:47 AM

obama is ‘married’ to Michelle.

Hillary is ‘married’ to Bill.

Schadenfreude on July 31, 2013 at 10:51 AM

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

Huma is ‘married’ to Wiener

Schadenfreude on July 31, 2013 at 10:51 AM

After hearing Napolitano was leaving in September, I was worried, but the White House softball team just keeps getting better and better.

Fallon on July 31, 2013 at 10:51 AM

McCarthy is married to Kenneth McCarey. They have three children, Daniel, Maggie and Julie.[13]
Bmore on July 31, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Get out of here. Is Kenneth biologically a man?

bluegill on July 31, 2013 at 10:52 AM

Can we stop talking about environmental regulations killing jobs, please?

Sure. Just tell us about all the jobs the EPA regs have created. The people who have lost their jobs at coal plants, light bulb plants and plastic bag plants because of the EPA would like to know.

*crickets*

PattyJ on July 31, 2013 at 10:52 AM

Can someone please show me were the EPA created jobs-besides beaurocratic paper pushing over authoritative environmental whack jobs

jaywemm on July 31, 2013 at 10:52 AM

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

Hmmm.

bluegill on July 31, 2013 at 10:55 AM

In his donations rolo…

Schadenfreude on July 31, 2013 at 10:50 AM

He has binders full of them.

oldroy on July 31, 2013 at 10:55 AM

So this hag is a she and married?Surprise…

sandee on July 31, 2013 at 10:55 AM

Gosh – you think Obama could have appointed someone more qualified for this post. Like, maybe Sheila Jackson Lee.

oldroy on July 31, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Cluebat to the EPA – We out in the boonies not talking about how you’re killing jobs isn’t going to keep people employed. You stopping your murder of jobs, however, will keep people employed.

Heck, it might get the real GDP annualized growth rate up to 2.0%.

Related, I’m not seeing any posts on that yet. Ed picked a fine week to go on vacation ;-)

Steve Eggleston on July 31, 2013 at 10:57 AM

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

When did Obama nominate John Gibson to head the EPA?

http://tools.foxnews.com/sites/tools.foxnews.com/files/204×204-john-gibson.jpg

BuckeyeSam on July 31, 2013 at 10:58 AM

Another four year old phony scandal in the making.

antipc on July 31, 2013 at 10:58 AM

…How ’bout, no?

How ’bout “f*ck no, bitch”?

Midas on July 31, 2013 at 10:59 AM

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

Sure, stop killing jobs with regulations. IDIOT!

cajunpatriot on July 31, 2013 at 11:01 AM

Has anyone given the New Guy some Men’s Grecian Formula yet?

ToddPA on July 31, 2013 at 11:03 AM

I can’t expand my cattle operation bcs the EPA wants to tell me how & where I can feed my cows bcs I live on a river.
And I’m not talking about common sense stuff.
I can’t fill my fuel tanks on the place either (not that I can afford that anyway now) bcs for each tank you must have a separate spill containment system, which done by their specifications, can cost ~$4500 each.
SPeaking of science, why doesn’t the EPA talk about how DEET had no effect on bird’s eggs? The USFS & USFW said that years ago before the ban. Why aren’t they talking about the science that prives that is a lie?
Why aren’t they talking about the real reason the Spotted Owl has a numbers problem? Competition with a more successful species that’s closely related, the Mexican spotted owl. Why aren’t they talking about those lies?
And let us recall real science shows us that CO2 does not drive atmospheric temperature rises. That’s the sun that does that.
CO2 isn’t a pollutant.
Why does the EPA not use science to make decisions?
Could it be bcs the EPA is not about science, but communist control and takeover of everything?
Why is it the EPA is all over your a$$ when one of your man made ditches fills up with water & you drain it? Hmmmm? WTF kind of sense does that make?
IT’s not science that drives these communists. IT’s COMMUNISM.

Badger40 on July 31, 2013 at 11:04 AM

Why is it the Fed Govt gets all concerned about the sage grouse numbers being low, when in reality, this species exists in low numbers in our habitat up here?
They tell us up here that the introduced Chinese Pheasant does not compete with the sage grouse for food.
My observations over many years shows that’s a lie. And yet pheasants are protected bcs they’re hunted.
Why is it ok for the govt to introduce non-native species, but you & I can’t do it?
Why is that?

Badger40 on July 31, 2013 at 11:06 AM

I hate these people. That is all.

gsherin on July 31, 2013 at 11:08 AM

How about that haircut!

doufree on July 31, 2013 at 11:08 AM

As soon as everybody stops blaming industry and humanity for Global Warming.

portlandon on July 31, 2013 at 11:11 AM

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

As soon as everybody stops blaming industry and humanity for Global Warming.

portlandon on July 31, 2013 at 11:11 AM

Where else will they get the trillions they want?

darwin on July 31, 2013 at 11:12 AM

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

And they don’t describe us as “people” either.

Steve Eggleston on July 31, 2013 at 11:15 AM

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.

What a great way to start, lying to the American people.

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. …

It’s time state start charging and convicting EPA officials with trespassing.

sadatoni on July 31, 2013 at 11:18 AM

And they don’t describe us as “people” either.

Steve Eggleston on July 31, 2013 at 11:15 AM

These are people, after all, who get violent if anyone tries to prevent them from killing their own babies.

Flange on July 31, 2013 at 11:19 AM

Regulation is a noble means to their inarguably glorious ends

I’m not sure their glorious ends are what you believe them to be. These people have no clue about the climate. They have no clue what is “normal”. They have no clue what effect humans have on the climate. EPA should stick to making sure we don’t dump our trashcans into the rivers.

freedomfirst on July 31, 2013 at 11:19 AM

“Can we stop talking about environmental regulations killing jobs, please?”

The issue is that environmental regulations kill private sector job but create bureaucratic ones in the government, so from this bureaucrat’s perspective more regulations are always better then fewer.

Of course the problem is that as fewer people actually produce goods and services we lose real economic value.

The left seems to believe we could employee most of the country in a government bureaucracy regulating each other and still somehow put food on the table.

18-1 on July 31, 2013 at 11:21 AM

We’ll shut up if you shut up!

Herb on July 31, 2013 at 10:31 AM

No, we won’t. Not ever.

HiJack on July 31, 2013 at 11:23 AM

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

bluegill on July 31, 2013 at 10:42 AM

Advertising?

freedomfirst on July 31, 2013 at 11:24 AM

Watching Hannity the other night and he had some female Dem hack on talking incessantly over everyone trying to make the point that under Odumbocare premiums will be cut in half. Malarky!

rjoco1 on July 31, 2013 at 11:24 AM

Where does Obama find them?

Cindy Munford on July 31, 2013 at 10:30 AM

GrayShortHairedDykes.com

kirkill on July 31, 2013 at 11:25 AM

You want the EPA to ‘be responsive’? DEFUND THEM.

GarandFan on July 31, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Where does Obama find them?

Cindy Munford on July 31, 2013 at 10:30 AM

Gray Short Haired Dyk3s dot com

kirkill on July 31, 2013 at 11:26 AM

Wake up America

Schadenfreude on July 31, 2013 at 11:26 AM

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

bluegill on July 31, 2013 at 10:42 AM

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

rrpjr on July 31, 2013 at 11:30 AM

It’s time state start charging and convicting EPA officials with trespassing.

sadatoni on July 31, 2013 at 11:18 AM

The EPA is not an enumerated power under the Constitution for the Fed.
Let the states deal with and clean up their own environments.
I don’t go into people’s houses & tell them how to clean and organize.
The only time it should ever become an issue is when one state negatively affects another with its environmental practices.

Badger40 on July 31, 2013 at 11:35 AM

I thought the female Terminator was a lot hotter than this one.

Demonized on July 31, 2013 at 11:36 AM

Glad I stopped back by, bluegill cracked me up at 10:52.

Cindy Munford on July 31, 2013 at 11:36 AM

The GOP can gripe and whine about the EPA abuses, send letters, demand curtailment OR they can go after the EPA’s budget via the power of the purse and stop them dead in their tracks.

Will their action match their rhetoric?

Charlemagne on July 31, 2013 at 11:36 AM

Wake up America

Schadenfreude on July 31, 2013 at 11:26 AM

Those Bushes are everywhere.
If I lived near an overpass (nearest one is 60 miles away), I would do this.
How did the Patriots of the 18th century get their fellow APATHETIC and SCARED citizens to unite as one against the oppressive and ridiculous British govt?
And that govt wasn’t half as bad as this one.

Badger40 on July 31, 2013 at 11:37 AM

Sure. Just tell us about all the jobs the EPA regs have created. The people who have lost their jobs at coal plants, light bulb plants and plastic bag plants because of the EPA would like to know.

*crickets*

PattyJ on July 31, 2013 at 10:52 AM

Their point is that increased environmental regulation requires companies to spend money installing pollution control equipment and hiring of environmental scientists, professionals, and consultants.

This is true in the static sense. The problem is, the company could instead have spent that money on hiring more people to increase productivity.

The net effect is a decrease in total employment, but they are factually correct in the fact that there are new jobs created for manufacturers of pollution control equipment and environmental professionals. They do not care that the money could have been better spent elsewhere.

For larger companies, the economy of scale makes this easier to absorb. For smaller companies, the increased costs for this equipment and personnel is not able to be shielded from the costs of their products.

It is not fair to larger companies to exempt smaller companies from environmental regulation.

It is not fair to smaller companies to face the increased cost of environmental regulations as it causes them to be less competitive.

It is not fair to either to have increased costs when they are in businesses that face import competition from China/India. China/India do not face the same cost structure for “increasing jobs” in the environmental realm. The US charges no tariff or fee assosciated with the difference in the cost of environmental regulation.

If the enviro-nuts really cared about the global problem of pollution, they would instead be demanding that countries either meet the same standards as us, or face a corresponding penalty on their products entering the United States.

Manufacturers are simply asking for the playing field to not be skewed in favor of cheaper imports that are made more cheaply in other countries due to the lack of significant costs assosciated with worker safety & health and environmental protection.

weaselyone on July 31, 2013 at 11:38 AM

the power of the purse

Charlemagne on July 31, 2013 at 11:36 AM

It is exactly why the GOP is pretty much dead to me. They’re not serious about stopping any of this.
They just keep introducing more band aids that do nothing.

Badger40 on July 31, 2013 at 11:39 AM

The leftist Dems cannot handle truth or facts – are blind in the right eye. She’s conducting the leftist choir.

The truth hurts.

MN J on July 31, 2013 at 11:40 AM

Another winner that has never had a real job, made payroll or done any manual labor in her life.

She’s also the type stooge that lectures us on carbon footprint as she flys around in her private jet, giant “safe” vehicle and goes home to gated community lit up like Ft Knox.

acyl72 on July 31, 2013 at 11:41 AM

“Can we stop talking about environmental regulations killing jobs, please?”

I agree, we can stop talking about it, there is not a debate, it’s a certainty. Environmental regulations kill jobs.

Can we now talk about what to do to eliminate those regulations?

While we are at it, explain how breathing is now pollution.

Stephen L. Hall on July 31, 2013 at 11:46 AM

This is true in the static sense. The problem is, the company could instead have spent that money on hiring more people to increase productivity.

weaselyone on July 31, 2013 at 11:38 AM

Everything that you said in that post is so very true. It isn’t just unions causing manufacturing and such to go overseas.
The EPA is going to cause agriculture to favor big agribusinesses. It already has.
Small operators like us find it hard to compete with big operators.
In fact, I have personally seen and experienced this myself: govt regulators scrutinizing small operators more & leaving big operators alone. This is a PERSONAL experience over the years.
None of this is about protecting the environment or people. Many of these agency people cross back & forth btwn the EPA & sister agencies & the private sector environmental groups that sue the govt for PROFITS, under the guise of a nonprofit agency.
I’ve already called attention here on HA to the EAJA fund abuse. IT’s is very rampant AND there is no true accounting of the real $$ lost to this abuse bcs of Clinton/Gore’s paperless act thing.
Various govt agencies like USDA,USF&W,USFS,EPA, etc. use their power to run farmers & ranchers off of their land.
Some of these people in this agency do it on PURPOSE and some are useful idiots bcs they cannot think for themselves beyond what their professors indoctrinated them with in college.
These agencies also on many occasions avoid hiring certain people (like people with farm & ranch backgrounds) on purpose.
Several retired profs I had that were old USFS guys have told me they were specifically told people with these types of backgrounds were not to be hired.
Even though they are the perfect fit for such jobs.

Badger40 on July 31, 2013 at 11:47 AM

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?”

No, Ms. McCarthy, LET’S talk about environmental regulations killing both jobs and the environment.

These wonderful regulations on “greenhouse gas emissions”, specifically the one requiring New Source Review permits on facilities emitting more than 75,000 tons per year of CO2, are both killing jobs AND causing the emission of MORE greenhouse gases.

Even President Obama has recognized that natural gas produces half as much CO2 as coal per unit energy produced. But the 75,000 ton/yr limit is generated by burning natural gas with a heating value of 39 megawatts. Since most commercial gas-fired turbines produce at least 250 megawatts, the EPA’s 2010 regulation effectively prohibits the construction of new gas-fired power plants, which (if they replaced an equal amount of coal-fired energy) would cut CO2 emissions in half.

So the EPA’s regulation not only prevents the job creation necessary to build and run gas-fired power plants, but also increases future CO2 emissions by preventing conversion from coal to natural gas!

Ms. EPA Administrator, welcome to the Law of Unintended Consequences!!!

Steve Z on July 31, 2013 at 11:54 AM

Tony Montana – “who’d want to stick their fingers in a dike…?

Kuffar on July 31, 2013 at 11:55 AM

To date, the committee has sent six letters to the EPA and other top administration officials seeking the data’s release.

OOH! Give us the data, or we’re gonna, we’re gonna… WRITE ANOTHER LETTER!

Marcola on July 31, 2013 at 11:55 AM

We spend $7 Billion+ a year funding the EPA.

We now spend more than 2.6% of GDP on complying with Environmental Regulations. That would mean we had $407 billion in lost GDP due to environmental regulation in 2012.

Obviously, there is some societal benefit to some of the regulation, but I think we are far past the point of diminishing return.

We need common sense environmental regulation. Amend the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act to remove federal mandates to the states.

Let state’s handle pollution within their borders where citizens can hold their elected officials accountable for the conditions in their state.

The EPA should only be involved in settling disputes between the states due to environmental impacts crossing state lines and regulating emissions/pollution that impact the borders with Canada, Mexico, and international waters.

The current “all drains lead to the ocean” philosophy is ridiculous.

Environmental Water Law should not revolve around a tagline from Finding Nemo.

weaselyone on July 31, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Steve Z on July 31, 2013 at 11:54 AM

Your analysis isn’t entirely accurate. The regulations don’t forbid building of facilities or emission units that generate more than 75,000 tons of CO2 emissions. It simply means that those facilities must obtain a construction permit to do so. The construction permit (PSD) requires a Best Available Control Technology (BACT) evaluation for the units that emit CO2. BACT for CO2 is still in its infancy, but involves such things as carbon capture and sequestration.

In essence, they can build, but it requires a significant increase in costs/time to evaluate and implement the corresponding controls.

weaselyone on July 31, 2013 at 11:59 AM

Looks like my uncle.

Akzed on July 31, 2013 at 12:07 PM

Badger40 on July 31, 2013 at 11:47 AM

We know how well the EPA treats small businesses:
http://www.omaha.com/article/20130727/NEWS/130729030/1707

EPA has twice sent private confidential information on ranchers to environmental groups. The second time was after they admitted their mistake in doing it the first time.

The only difference between this and the IRS is that the IRS touches each individual American, so it is a bigger story.

This is Standard Operating Procedure for the current administration.

EPA doesn’t waste much time going after the larger corporations, because they know that the environmental groups watch them like hawks. They also know that these companies already spend millions to ensure they stay in compliance to avoid being publicly shamed or sued. EPA instead spends their time and efforts beating on smaller companies who do not have the resources or experience in dealing with the agency.

Read the EPA label on your Weed & Feed for your lawn at home. Notice that the EPA has the authority to come after you personally for not following the directions on the label.

weaselyone on July 31, 2013 at 12:07 PM

In essence, they can build, but it requires a significant increase in costs/time to evaluate and implement the corresponding controls.

weaselyone on July 31, 2013 at 11:59 AM

This reminds me of something I was hearing about the permitting process for the horse slaughter facility in NM.
They had all the necessary permits & couldn’t get the USDA inspector to come out. Now mind you, slaughtering horses in the US for meat is NOT illegal, nor should it be bcs they are livestock just like cows are (the emotional argument that a horse is somehow more intelligent or more important than a horse, making it a pet of some sort is ridiculous. Cows are just as intelligent & aware as horses. Only uglier.). The reason horse slaughter facilities in the US had to shut down was bcs of the refusal of USDA to send inspectors to the plants.
USDA wastes a lot of $$ on things. And yet, they claimed their funding was cut for the inspectors. Which is, of course, what animal communist front groups have been after all along.
While the facility was waiting on the inspector, their permits EXPIRED. So back to the drawing board.
I have friends in this biz telling me they opened anyway after an inspector was supposedly sent, but I am not sure yet., Haven’t ‘Googled’ that.

Badger40 on July 31, 2013 at 12:11 PM

“Can we stop talking about facts, please?”

/Leftists on every topic

mankai on July 31, 2013 at 12:11 PM

Another doughy frizzle haired autocrat female from Obama whose going to mommy us into shape. And by us, she means the environment because people are parasites on gaia.

joeindc44 on July 31, 2013 at 12:11 PM

“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.”

We are constantly being bombarded with the message that climate change is going to be the end of the world and that we must take action now to prevent the destruction of our planet.

I will believe that when those pushing that message actually start acting like it.

If the majority of the world believes this is true, why do they not take action themselves?

If I knew that someone was going to attempt to burn my house down sometime in the next week, I certainly would take immediate action to get my own house in order.

Their hypocrisy in their own actions shows their level of belief in the “settled science”.

The day I will believe the alarmist community’s pleas for stopping carbon pollution will be the day that they start acting like it.

weaselyone on July 31, 2013 at 12:13 PM

weaselyone on July 31, 2013 at 11:38 AM

True, other jobs will result from this reg push, but the people who will lose their jobs will not be able to move into the new jobs. The government response to that is “oh well, go on food stamps.”

PattyJ on July 31, 2013 at 12:14 PM

Their vision of economic growth can only be the total replacement of global-wide industries by green ones. Moronic!

roy_batty on July 31, 2013 at 12:16 PM

The only difference between this and the IRS is that the IRS touches each individual American, so it is a bigger story.

This is Standard Operating Procedure for the current administration.

EPA doesn’t waste much time going after the larger corporations, because they know that the environmental groups watch them like hawks. They also know that these companies already spend millions to ensure they stay in compliance to avoid being publicly shamed or sued. EPA instead spends their time and efforts beating on smaller companies who do not have the resources or experience in dealing with the agency.

Read the EPA label on your Weed & Feed for your lawn at home. Notice that the EPA has the authority to come after you personally for not following the directions on the label.

weaselyone on July 31, 2013 at 12:07 PM

They’ve also made it illegal for us to spray for noxious weeds, which we are required to do by law (EPA regs) without a special permit.
We do anyway. Frack them. I’ll just tell them my nephew did it (bcs he’s got a permit). You have to pay for the permit & pay to take a class for it.
Those not willing to do that have to pay a company to spray, which ain’t cheap, let me tell you.
And guess what happens if you don’t spray?
The county weed board picks who to harass (oh yes they PICK!) & then fine usa here in ND $80/day up to a $4000 limit which they tack ont your property taxes.
Which of course if you don’t pay, the state then STEALS your land & sells it to the highest bidder.
And about the info they leak on us ranchers? This is EXACTLY why we cattle producers have been fighting against the USDA’s plan to force us to use special RFD ear tags with our personal info on each cow.
For those of you that don’t know, ear tags are mostly worthless.
In a perfect world they would work.
But you see, if you want to track an animal, you BRAND it. The only foolproof way. You can also do freeze brands.
But you see, the USDA/Federal Govt is not interested in what works.
They want CONTROL.
They want to be able to steal my herd information, which is none of their damned business, BTW, when they’re driving by in their govt vehicle with an electronic reader.
They’ve already got Goggle Earth X100 capability to spy on my land & count my cows & horses, WTF?!

Badger40 on July 31, 2013 at 12:17 PM

Badger40 on July 31, 2013 at 12:11 PM

This is a little different from the EPA. Most states still maintain the environmental permitting authority for facilities in the states. However the states have to submit implementation plans for every EPA rule and have those approved in order to hold on to their authority. EPA can still object to the state issuing permits, but they can’t flat out deny a permit if everything is legal and demonstrates compliance.

Sadly, Texas challenged EPA’s authority to regulate CO2 through PSD permits and they recently lost in court. Texas refused to submit an implementation plan for regulating CO2/Greenhouse gases because they believed EPA lacked the authority to do so. As of now, Texas cannot permit new facilities/modifeid existing facilities who will emit +75,000 tons of CO2. The CO2 portion of the permit has to be written/approved by EPA for a Texas facility to be able to build a new facilty or expand an existing facility.

Texas can still wiggle out of it if their lawsuit against EPA’s authority to regulate CO2 goes through and wins, but in the meantime and as of now, Texas businesses can only obtain a permit for CO2 emissions through EPA instead of the state environmental agency.

weaselyone on July 31, 2013 at 12:19 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 on July 31, 2013 at 10:42 AM

They want to attract women who are attracted to women who look like men.

It’s all perfectly normal.

Akzed on July 31, 2013 at 12:21 PM

The day I will believe the alarmist community’s pleas for stopping carbon pollution will be the day that they start acting like it.

weaselyone on July 31, 2013 at 12:13 PM

I’ll never ‘believe’ in carbon pollution bcs CO2 does not do what they say it does. They keep repeating this lie, like the lie that the polar bears are disappearing, which is a lie, or the lie I mentioned above about the DEET & the spotted owl.
CFC’s is another damn lie. Reagan fell for it.
Reagan also felt sorry for the farmers & expanded the farm programs which are WRONG & favor a special class of even farmer (not all farmers) & as ranchers we don’t get jack $hit.
All of this Fed govt intervention is not legal, nor justified by the Constitution.
And yet,it is completely ignored that the Fed is involved in stealing states’ powers & no one cares.
the real answer to all of this is nullification & states taking back their power.
The Fed would be powerless if states starting telling the Fed to go eff itself.

Badger40 on July 31, 2013 at 12:22 PM

“Can we stop talking about…..(or else?)

I suspect that it won’t be long before we are presented with the official list of topics we may not discuss…and half the nation will cheer.

Don L on July 31, 2013 at 12:23 PM

‘Climate change’ has been going on 4.5 billion years on this planet.

It can’t be ‘fixed’ until the planet is swallowed up by the sun.

You can’t prevent that with regulations.

The regulations are a burden to businesses costing jobs.

Until the EPA stops making new regulations and starts repealing them, it will continue to be a job killing agency.

I hope we can get rid of the EPA so that it can then be a job creating agency in its absence.

ajacksonian on July 31, 2013 at 12:24 PM

“Can we stop talking about environmental regulations killing jobs, please?” she asked, prompting loud applause.

Saw her say that on the teevee last night — “You wish!”, I thought.

It is sort of a theme with libs, isn’t it?
Obummer: “Can we stop talking about the Keystone XL Pipeline creating jobs, please?”
Hillary: “Can we stop talking about abandoning people to die in Benghazi, please?”
McCain: “Can we stop talking about how our border leaks like a sieve, please?”
etc.

KS Rex on July 31, 2013 at 12:34 PM

Comment pages: 1 2