EPA Requests 230,000 New Bureaucrats To Regulate "Greenhouse Gases"

[IronWing]

Patronus quotes his source:
The EPA aims to regulate greenhouse gas emissions through the Clean Air Act, even though the law doesn’t give the EPA explicit power to do so. The agency’s authority to move forward is being challenged in court by petitioners who argue that such a decision should be left for Congress to make.

Clean Air Act
DEFINITIONS
SEC. 302. When used in this Act—
...
(h) All language referring to effects on welfare includes, but is
not limited to, effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, man-made
materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility, and climate, damage
to and deterioration of property, and hazards to transportation,
as well as effects on economic values and on personal comfort and
well-being, whether caused by transformation, conversion, or combination
with other air pollutants.
...

Congress has already made the decision that EPA should regulate greenhouse gases; they did so in 1970 when the above language was passed. Thanks for playing.

 

[werepossum]

One of the worst greenhouse gases is r134a, yet to date the EPA refuses to ban the over the counter sales of it to anyone, even though it requires everyone who works with it professionally to have EPA approved recovery/recycling equipment,

but they ban Inhalers.

LOL The EPA does do some pretty bone-headed stuff. They also do some pretty awesome stuff though. I would not want to be China, or even 60s era USA. I would however like to see some protections so that American industry isn't competing head to head with nations who lack this kind of environmental protections.

The 230,000 employees & $21 billion per year comes from what the EPA calculated would be necessary to do the paperwork for the 6.1 million business permits required to meet the 100 ton CO2 law written by the Democrat Congress. Recognizing that this level of regulation would effectively destroy our economy, the EPA invented a "tailoring rule" that allows it to enforce not the 100 ton CO2 limits of the law, but rather 100,000 tons (or 75,000 ton increases) to limit the number of affected businesses to six hundred or so. The EPA is also being sued in federal court, since this (arguably anyway) is an illegal action. (There's an argument the other way as well, since CO2 is NOT a pollutant except in the sense that too much of anything is bad, and therefore the 100 ton limit should not apply. Outputting 100 tons of CO2 is NOT equal to outputting 100 tons of lead, something the regulatory eggheads well understand even if the Congressional aristocracy does not.) The EPA bureaucrats are smart enough to recognize that sometimes you can get 90% of what you want for $1 billion but it takes $1 trillion to get the other 10%, so practically speaking the EPA needs some latitude on enforcement.

Again, I'm all for slamming the EPA when it does stupid stuff, but the agency is actually trying to mitigate the insanity of the Democrat Congress that passed this turkey. Thus the EPA is actually the good guy here. This is even down from the EPA's earlier proposal of 25,000 tons, which would have affected about 14,000 businesses including roughly 3,000 who do not currently fall under EPA jurisdiction. With this new proposal there should not be any businesses affected that are not currently having to comply with EPA emissions regulations. So while there will be some economic effects as with any new regulations, mostly from the cost of adding sequestration equipment or more likely purchasing carbon offsets (insert obligatory Algore indulgence money dance) and from abandoning some facilities unable to meet the new regulations, at least in a cost-effective manner, it's not going to be devastating. And it will cut CO2 emissions somewhat. Again, let's all remember that if the EPA followed what the Democrat Congress passed, our way of life would be over, period. The EPA is being amazingly restrained in its performance of legally required duties.

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/0...inal-tailoring-rule-for-greenhouse-32021.html

 

[NeoV]

OMG - the end is near!

Obama is going to take your guns!

Obama is a terrrrrorrist

Obama wasn't born in the USA!

THE EPA is going to go from 17,000 employees to 250,000 to take your air away!

Stock up on ammo and batten down the hatches!!!!


I swear to god, I could make a right-wing blog and say that Obama knows about the evil Alien invasion force parked on the dark side of the moon - and you clowns would eat it up.

 

[werepossum]

OMG - the end is near!

Obama is going to take your guns!

Obama is a terrrrrorrist

Obama wasn't born in the USA!

THE EPA is going to go from 17,000 employees to 250,000 to take your air away!

Stock up on ammo and batten down the hatches!!!!


I swear to god, I could make a right-wing blog and say that Obama knows about the evil Alien invasion force parked on the dark side of the moon - and you clowns would eat it up.

It must take real talent to type whilst patting yourself on the back and ignoring all reality. Congrats, I suppose.

 

[Throckmorton]

oh fucking lord... 230,000 government employees? even at the 50k salary cap I believe all government(fed) should be capped at that still comes out to 11,500,000,000 each year to pay them and that's not including benefits, pensions, operating costs. Do we really need this tax burden when we're already killing our industry with over regulation?

Seriously, you want to pay an Admiral $50k?

 

[JockoJohnson]

Seriously, you want to pay an Admiral $50k?

Is 50k too much?

 

[IGBT]

liberalism is a mental disorder. Lay off police/fire/EMT's/EM medical workers and hire more eco-KOOKS.

 

[shadow9d9]

liberalism is a mental disorder. Lay off police/fire/EMT's/EM medical workers and hire more eco-KOOKS.

Police/fire is SOCIALISM! Clean air/water is CRAZY! Let's all swim in the gulf. We need LESS REGULATION so that oil companies can dispense with caring and just use the water as it should be used for.. a dumping place for oil!

 

[Ausm]

All I can find on this is from hack right wing sites.

Anyone have at least a mostly impartial source?

A post from a Right Wing hack with give you this

 

[Londo_Jowo]

A post from a Right Wing hack with give you this

Huh?

 

[Ausm]

Huh?

How fucking stupid can you be? Oh I guess that is an open ended rhetorical question ()

 

[Londo_Jowo]

How fucking stupid can you be? Oh I guess that is an open ended rhetorical question ()

Go read what you posted, it makes no grammatical sense.

 

[IGBT]

Police/fire is SOCIALISM! Clean air/water is CRAZY! Let's all swim in the gulf. We need LESS REGULATION so that oil companies can dispense with caring and just use the water as it should be used for.. a dumping place for oil!

typical delusional rant of liberal mental disorder.

 

[shadow9d9]

typical delusional rant of liberal mental disorder.

Is that the best you got? Is that all it takes to think you have an argument? Can't even be bothered to capitalize the first letter in a sentence?

Typical delusional rant of conversative mental disorder.

What do I win!?

 

[Ausm]

typical delusional rant of liberal mental disorder.

I am totally convinced all liberals have a mental disorder now.

 

[IGBT]

Is that the best you got? Is that all it takes to think you have an argument? Can't even be bothered to capitalize the first letter in a sentence?

Typical delusional rant of conversative mental disorder.

What do I win!?

you loose. Your stuck with your miserable self. Nothing can change that. And we all know misery loves company.

 

[bfdd]

Seriously, you want to pay an Admiral $50k?

Yes I do. I also believe Fed employees shouldn't pay taxes, so that 50k is quite a bit larger now. Remember when you take a government job, you are a public servant. You serve the public, you are "sacrificing" for the whole. Why should we have to float you so much cash? 50k tax free cap seems pretty fair to me. That's a lot of scratch.

 

[Fern]

All I can find on this is from hack right wing sites.

Anyone have at least a mostly impartial source?

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/tailoring-rule-case.pdf

See pages 48/161 and 49/161.

This is the brief the EPA filed. They did say :

the number of businesses forced into this regulatory regime would grow tremendously — from approximately 14,000 now to as many as 6.1 million.

“Hiring the 230,000 full-time employees necessary to produce the 1.4 billion work hours required to address the actual increase in permitting functions would result in an increase in Title V administration costs of $21 billion per year,” the EPA wrote in the court brief.

However, it appears to me that they are acknowledging the huge regulatory burden that strict adherence to the law would bring and are trying to instead phase it in etc.

No matter, the damn thing is still going to be burdensome and expensive.

Edit: I suggest reading this for context: http://www.instituteforenergyresear...rd-defense-of-its-greenhouse-gas-regulations/

Fern

 

[Throckmorton]

Yes I do. I also believe Fed employees shouldn't pay taxes, so that 50k is quite a bit larger now. Remember when you take a government job, you are a public servant. You serve the public, you are "sacrificing" for the whole. Why should we have to float you so much cash? 50k tax free cap seems pretty fair to me. That's a lot of scratch.

You get the workers you pay for

 

[piasabird]

I will be just as safe tomorrow without them.

Should fire most of the EPA.

 

[fskimospy]

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/tailoring-rule-case.pdf

See pages 48/161 and 49/161.

This is the brief the EPA filed. They did say :



However, it appears to me that they are acknowledging the huge regulatory burden that strict adherence to the law would bring and are trying to instead phase it in etc.

No matter, the damn thing is still going to be burdensome and expensive.

Edit: I suggest reading this for context: http://www.instituteforenergyresear...rd-defense-of-its-greenhouse-gas-regulations/

Fern

Your 'impartial' link is from a right wing think tank that promotes free market energy policy. Just sayin'.

 

[Fern]

Your 'impartial' link is from a right wing think tank that promotes free market energy policy. Just sayin'.

The impartial link is the first one. It's the brief prepared by the EPA, that group is merely hosting it. So, yeah it's impartial.

As to the second link to an article by the gruop: I know they oppose it. However, they make some good points that are supported by the EPA's own filing.

The article isn't a long piece, why don't you critic it for us?

Fern

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Time to shut down the EPA.....just what we need more police.

 

[piasabird]

This is just a way to keep people from building coal electric plants.

 

[Throckmorton]

I will be just as safe tomorrow without them.

Should fire most of the EPA.

Uh no. It wouldn't. A 1970s Scout drove by me today and I nearly choked from the pollution it was spewing without catalytic convertors. You don't want to live in an America without pollution regulations.