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

[woolfe9999]

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.

$50K tax free is what, the equivalent of about $70K? Why should people in government make less than they would with an equivalent job in the private sector? For example, let's say you head up a department with 300 people working under you. You think anyone in the private sector managing that number of people makes $70K a year? How are we supposed to get anyone competent with such non-competitive pay?

 

[xBiffx]

$50K tax free is what, the equivalent of about $70K? Why should people in government make less than they would with an equivalent job in the private sector? For example, let's say you head up a department with 300 people working under you. You think anyone in the private sector managing that number of people makes $70K a year? How are we supposed to get anyone competent with such non-competitive pay?

Oh you are one of those that measures success/worth by how many people work for you. I need to put you in touch with some of my colleagues, you can pat each other on the back.

 

[woolfe9999]

Oh you are one of those that measures success/worth by how many people work for you. I need to put you in touch with some of my colleagues, you can pat each other on the back.

Not a very strong retort. Success/worth can be measured in a variety of ways. I was using the example of having 300 people work under you to illustrate a point, and one that you haven't refuted. I think the example is quite apt - superivising 300 people is an enormous amount of responsibility and no one competent is going to do that for the kind of chicken feed that BFDD is talking about. If you are competent to do that, you can make several times that in the private sector.

 

[shadow9d9]

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

Loose?

 

[woolfe9999]

Loose?

Apparently you aren't just an Eco-KOOK, but a promiscuous one at that.

 

[Ausm]

Apparently you aren't just an Eco-KOOK, but a promiscuous one at that.

LMFAO +1

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[xBiffx]

Loose?

/Troll on.

Yeah you know like taken for a ride too many times. Or "you have a screw loose".

/Troll off.

 

[bfdd]

Not a very strong retort. Success/worth can be measured in a variety of ways. I was using the example of having 300 people work under you to illustrate a point, and one that you haven't refuted. I think the example is quite apt - superivising 300 people is an enormous amount of responsibility and no one competent is going to do that for the kind of chicken feed that BFDD is talking about. If you are competent to do that, you can make several times that in the private sector.

Then you should and I disagree, there are plenty of people who would do the work for the pay. One of the benefits of government work was supposed to be the benefits. 50k tax free is a lot of scratch, why do they need to make more? That's what the average house hold makes right? Seems like a pretty reasonable number to me.

 

[Fern]

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

I'm seeing different info.

My understanding is that Congress never passed any Clean Air Act saying C02 needs to be regulated. Rather, in an effort to side-step the inability of the Dems to pass a bill, the EPA unilaterally declared in 2009 that C02 should be covered under the Clean Air Act of 1970 and 1990.

Now they are in the uniquely stupid position of claiming that while it was Congress's (unstated) intent to cover C02, it is administratively impossible to do so. To get out of that absurdity, they are trying to ignore the letter of the law and create 'new' law themselves (under what authority?) to make their contention that C02 is covered at least administratively plausible.

In short, they themselves have amply demonstrated that their contention Congress intended to include C02 under the Clean Air Act is an impossibility.

Fern

 

[bfdd]

Fern, they really do look like a bunch of idiots stumbling over themselves.

 

[werepossum]

I'm seeing different info.

My understanding is that Congress never passed any Clean Air Act saying C02 needs to be regulated. Rather, in an effort to side-step the inability of the Dems to pass a bill, the EPA unilaterally declared in 2009 that C02 should be covered under the Clean Air Act of 1970 and 1990.

Now they are in the uniquely stupid position of claiming that while it was Congress's (unstated) intent to cover C02, it is administratively impossible to do so. To get out of that absurdity, they are trying to ignore the letter of the law and create 'new' law themselves (under what authority?) to make their contention that C02 is covered at least administratively plausible.

In short, they themselves have amply demonstrated that their contention Congress intended to include C02 under the Clean Air Act is an impossibility.

Fern

Didn't SCOTUS rule that CO2 was a pollutant under the definition of the Clean Air Act in EPA v. Massachusetts? It's my understanding that the EPA wanted a law specifically written for CO2 simply because CO2 did not fit into the limits set under the Clean Air Act, but failing that went ahead with regulation under its current regulations because of the SCOTUS decision. I believe that EPA v. Massachusetts established not only that the EPA had the authority to regulate CO2 emissions, but had the responsibility to do so unless it can show scientific evidence why CO2 emissions do not fall under the Clean Air Act's climate provision. (Which, amusingly, was probably included because of the claims that soot and other particulates were bringing on a new Ice Age.)

Personally I'm very much a skeptic of CO2 with regards to CAGW, and I can see the argument that beginning to enforce the Clean Air Act as limiting on CO2 emissions is activism. But I think the alternate view, that it would be activism to continue ignoring CO2 emissions in light of the SCOTUS decision, holds a bit more weight. And while I very much disagree with the actual SCOTUS decision, I don't want the EPA to ignore it. The law should be what it is, whether or not I agree with it, and where the law is wrong, it should be changed rather than ignored.

 

[IronWing]

I'm seeing different info.

My understanding is that Congress never passed any Clean Air Act saying C02 needs to be regulated. Rather, in an effort to side-step the inability of the Dems to pass a bill, the EPA unilaterally declared in 2009 that C02 should be covered under the Clean Air Act of 1970 and 1990.

Now they are in the uniquely stupid position of claiming that while it was Congress's (unstated) intent to cover C02, it is administratively impossible to do so. To get out of that absurdity, they are trying to ignore the letter of the law and create 'new' law themselves (under what authority?) to make their contention that C02 is covered at least administratively plausible.

In short, they themselves have amply demonstrated that their contention Congress intended to include C02 under the Clean Air Act is an impossibility.

Fern

I posted the letter of the law above. Congress fully intended to cover emmissions that impact climate. EPA has simply not followed the law for 40+ years and is angling to continue disregarding the law now. If Congress wants to change the law, fine, that's what Congress is for. But claims that EPA is overstepping its authority are incorrect and EPA aught to implement the law as written, not as some current politicians wish it to be.

 

[xBiffx]

Congress fully intended to cover emmissions that impact climate.

Something smells here. Wish I could tell you what Congress' intentions are/were/ever will be.

 

[IronWing]

Something smells here. Wish I could tell you what Congress' intentions are/were/ever will be.

Well, for starters, we can read the law.

See Public Law 91-604

 

[Fern]

Fern, they really do look like a bunch of idiots stumbling over themselves.

I've never seen anything like it.

In tax, it's not unusual to see 'Congressional intent' claimed or invoked to justify an interpretation of law. However, to acknowledge your interpretation based upon Congressional intent results in an impossibility, then continue on with it by creating new law to overcome that impossibility which overrides the clear letter of the law as passed by Congress is incredibly unique.

I'm guessing the other party in the law suit is trying to force the EPA to enforce the letter of the law, forcing the EPA to either abandon their position or seek 230,000 more EPA employees from Congress.

But I think they've proven their position by merely getting the EPA to admit the impossibility of their interpretation.

Obama's lawyers are the most creative (being real nice here) I've ever seen. I'm still waiting for an explanation on how Obama's lawyers OK'd the subordination of the govt's loan to Solyndra even though the letter of the law (and clear intent) forbids it. Might be the same group advising the EPA.

Fern

 

[Fern]

I posted the letter of the law above.
Congress fully intended to cover emmissions that impact climate.

C02, plant food, is not specifically mentioned.

Thus, it is the EPA's interpretation that it is include.

EPA has simply not followed the law for 40+ years and is angling to continue disregarding the law now. If Congress wants to change the law, fine, that's what Congress is for. But claims that EPA is overstepping its authority are incorrect and EPA aught to implement the law as written, not as some current politicians wish it to be.

They are admitting that they can't.

Fern

 

[xBiffx]

Well, for starters, we can read the law.

See Public Law 91-604

I see no mention of CO2 or greenhouse gases in the law. It does mention pollutants. CO2 as a pollutant has failed to pass muster.

 

[woolfe9999]

Then you should and I disagree, there are plenty of people who would do the work for the pay. One of the benefits of government work was supposed to be the benefits. 50k tax free is a lot of scratch, why do they need to make more? That's what the average house hold makes right? Seems like a pretty reasonable number to me.

$50k tax free plus bennies is probably great for most government work. Not all of it. If you can supervise 300 people competently you aren't going to do it for the government for that kind of money when you can make several times that in the private sector. You seem to think the public sector job market operates in its own vacuum, but it doesn't. It competes with the private sector for hires.

You do know the government hires, for example, doctors to work in state hospitals? What doctor works for that kind of pay when the lowest paid private sector doctor makes threefold that much money? The incompetent ones, that's who.

I notice you complain a lot about govnerment incompetence but you seem to favor policies that would encourage a lot more of it. Underpaying government employees is penny wise and pound foolish. We'll spend a lot more money dealing with the consquences of incompetence than we would paying decent wages.

- wolf

 

[IronWing]

I see no mention of CO2 or greenhouse gases in the law. It does mention pollutants. CO2 as a pollutant has failed to pass muster.

You won't find many pollutants listed in the act as EPA was directed to develop the list of pollutants through research and regulation. You will find climate as one of the listed resources to be protected. EPA, using the best available science, determined CO2 to be a pollutant as defined in the act.

 

[werepossum]

You won't find many pollutants listed in the act as EPA was directed to develop the list of pollutants through research and regulation. You will find climate as one of the listed resources to be protected. EPA, using the best available science, determined CO2 to be a pollutant as defined in the act.

Technically anything that effects climate falls under the same provision. A much stronger greenhouse gas is water vapor. Coincidentally, human beings emit both CO2 and water vapor. Soylent Green anyone?

I believe however that SCOTUS sealed the deal on CO2.

 

[xBiffx]

You will find climate as one of the listed resources to be protected.

Pretty vague subject there. So when we go into another ice age, I guess I've got the EPA to blame? Knew they were good for something.

EPA, using the best available science, determined CO2 to be a pollutant as defined in the act.

Interesting clarification there. I am willing to guess this is the same "science" that tells us that global warming is real and man is the predominant cause of it. I think a sixth grader at a science fair can produce better data.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm seeing different info.

My understanding is that Congress never passed any Clean Air Act saying C02 needs to be regulated. Rather, in an effort to side-step the inability of the Dems to pass a bill, the EPA unilaterally declared in 2009 that C02 should be covered under the Clean Air Act of 1970 and 1990.

Now they are in the uniquely stupid position of claiming that while it was Congress's (unstated) intent to cover C02, it is administratively impossible to do so. To get out of that absurdity, they are trying to ignore the letter of the law and create 'new' law themselves (under what authority?) to make their contention that C02 is covered at least administratively plausible.

In short, they themselves have amply demonstrated that their contention Congress intended to include C02 under the Clean Air Act is an impossibility.

Fern

No. The EPA is required to consider greenhouse gases such as CO2 as air pollutants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._Environmental_Protection_Agency

 

[IronWing]

Pretty vague subject there. So when we go into another ice age, I guess I've got the EPA to blame? Knew they were good for something.

No more or less vague than the other protected resources listed that folks don't seem to quibble about.

Interesting clarification there. I am willing to guess this is the same "science" that tells us that global warming is real and man is the predominant cause of it. I think a sixth grader at a science fair can produce better data.

No doubt you presented your findings to EPA during the public comment period of EPA's rule making process?

 

[bfdd]

$50k tax free plus bennies is probably great for most government work. Not all of it. If you can supervise 300 people competently you aren't going to do it for the government for that kind of money when you can make several times that in the private sector. You seem to think the public sector job market operates in its own vacuum, but it doesn't. It competes with the private sector for hires.

You do know the government hires, for example, doctors to work in state hospitals? What doctor works for that kind of pay when the lowest paid private sector doctor makes threefold that much money? The incompetent ones, that's who.

I notice you complain a lot about govnerment incompetence but you seem to favor policies that would encourage a lot more of it. Underpaying government employees is penny wise and pound foolish. We'll spend a lot more money dealing with the consquences of incompetence than we would paying decent wages.

- wolf

wolf, you know I get your point, but you're going off on a tangent bringing in other metrics that need to be looked at. doctors make so much because going to school to become a doctor costs so much. so professors need to get paid less(on top of other things) for tuition to come down. to many people demanding to much money. if you want the chance to make big bucks you go private, if you want security you go government. the trade off is your upward potential. If less people want to work for government, then the scope of government needs to come down. That just doesn't fly with most of the authoritarians running our country.

 

[xBiffx]

Finally, the Court remanded the case to the EPA, requiring the agency to review its contention that it has discretion in regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. The Court found the current rationale for not regulating to be inadequate and required the agency to articulate a reasonable basis in order to avoid regulation.

I think required is a strong word here. They gave the EPA discretion to consider CO2 and greenhouse gases air pollutants. Again, there is no law passed requiring this, only legislation from the bench with the opinion that it should or could be considered a pollutant. Fern's original statement is correct.

My understanding is that Congress never passed any Clean Air Act saying C02 needs to be regulated. Rather, in an effort to side-step the inability of the Dems to pass a bill, the EPA unilaterally declared in 2009 that C02 should be covered under the Clean Air Act of 1970 and 1990.