Of the many alarming comments Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator Lisa Jackson made to attendees at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, a select few stood out as particularly daunting. On the anniversary of Pearl Harbor, the EPA dropped its own economic bomb, asserting that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases are dangerous pollutants and a threat to human health and the environment. Consequently, the EPA is preparing to implement costly regulations on the economy to cut carbon dioxide emissions. But Jackson said we can take common sense without sacrificing our economy. Specifically she said,
“It will ensure that we take meaningful, common-sense steps, and allow us to do what our Clean Air Act does best – reduce emissions for better health, drive technology innovation for a better economy, and protect the environment for a better future – all without placing an undue burden on the businesses that make up the better part of our economy.”
A common sense way to regulate carbon dioxide without cost is impossible. The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis study of the economic effects of carbon dioxide regulations found cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses of $7 trillion by 2029 single-year GDP losses exceeding $600 billion in some years, energy cost increases of 30 percent or more, and annual job losses exceeding 800,000 for several years. But Jackson didn’t stop there. She also asserted that regulations should not replace cap and trade legislation but instead complement it:
“This is not an either/or moment. This is a both/and moment.”
Not only is this redundant but it also gives lawmakers and unelected bureaucrats authority to pile on rules and regulations that would chokehold the economy. The House of Representatives already passed their 1,428 pages of legislation that includes not only a cap and trade scheme but also a host of other burdensome provisions. Meanhile, the EPA drafted 564 pages of regulations in its Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Surely some will overlap but you can be sure that where one misses, the other hits the economy, and hits hard. According to FoxNews, one White House official said of the way EPA will regulate: “[I]t is not going to be able to regulate on a market-based way, so it’s going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty.”
Whether it’s disguised as clean jobs legislation or pollution reduction regulation, the reality is any cap and carbon dioxide is an energy tax – an attempt to drive energy prices so high that people use less. Because we use a lot of fossil fuel-based energy and there’s no low cost alternative, there’s no way around the economic pain that will ensue.
Jackson then proceeded to talk about the science behind global warming, taking a backdoor shot at Climategate:
“Now, we know that skeptics have and will continue to try and sow doubts about the science of climate change. These are the same tactics that have been used by defenders of the status quo for years. Those tactics only serve to delay and distract from the real work ahead, namely, growing our clean energy economy and finding innovative, cost-effective ways to reduce harmful GHGs. It’s time that we let the science speak for itself. We have relied on decades of sound, peer-reviewed, extensively evaluated scientific data. That data came from around the world and from our own U.S. scientists. What is makes clear beyond doubt is that climate change is real, and that now is the time to act.”
She’s right about two things. We should let the science speak for itself and climate change is real. Climate change has always been real but it shouldn’t be confused with manmade global warming, or even global warming in general, that’s purportedly destroying our planet. With the emergence of Climategate, now more than ever is the time we should allow for transparent science. Now isn’t the time to rush things through for baseless reasons like “We’ve waited long enough.” We should allow the truth of the science to play out. The skeptics who are allegedly employing method of delay and distract are in reality seeking truth and validity. That’s not such a bad thing for legislation and regulation that comes with such a hefty price tag.
As Congress tries to knock out the economy in one fell swoop with its economically dangerous cap and trade proposal, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking a different approach: proposing smaller, regulatory jabs at the economy with the intent to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions.
First, the EPA worked with the Department of Transportation to propose new vehicle standards - a 5 percent annual increase in fuel economy starting with the 2012 model year, reaching 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016. Last week, they announced the largest emitters of greenhouse gases must report their emissions.
Now, they’re going after large facilities. Just yesterday, “The Environmental Protection Agency announced plans to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, factories and oil refineries — a warning shot to Congress that if it does not move to curb global warming, the Obama administration will act on its own.”
In her speech, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said,
By using the power and authority of the Clean Air Act, we can begin reducing emissions from the nation’s largest greenhouse gas emitting facilities without placing an undue burden on the businesses that make up the vast majority of our economy. This is a common sense rule that is carefully tailored to apply to only the largest sources — those from sectors responsible for nearly 70 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions sources. This rule allows us to do what the Clean Air Act does best – reduce emissions for better health, drive technology innovation for a better economy, and protect the environment for a better future – all without placing an undue burden on the businesses that make up the better part of our economy.”
Although the newly proposed EPA rule will not apply to schools, restaurants and small businesses, it’s the large emitters of carbon dioxide that provide America with 85 percent of its energy needs. Regulating greenhouse gases with “the use of best technologies” will mean higher costs for energy passed on to schools, restaurants, small businesses, and of course, the consumer. Further, EPA’s attempt to exempt smaller entities is on flimsy legal ground and is not likely to withstand the inevitable and endless lawsuits from environmental activists
The Heritage Foundation’s analysis of the carbon capping Waxman-Markey bill project higher energy and other costs for a household of four - nearly $3,000 per year between 2012 and 2035. Gasoline prices will rise by 58 percent ($1.38 more per gallon) and average household electric rates will increase by 90 percent by 2035. And if the EPA is running the show, the micromanaging of our economy and the compliance costs that come along with it will only increase the costs.
On April 17, the EPA issued an endangerment finding, saying that global warming poses a serious threat to public health and safety. Interestingly, Jackson spoke as if 60-comment period on the endangerment finding and the EPA’s plan to regulate carbon dioxide was met with unanimous support. She said, “We have received more than 400,000 responses in the 60-day public comment period. And we soon expect a final document that will lay the foundation for reducing greenhouse emissions and confronting climate change.”
But through The Heritage Foundation’s StopEPA.com site, nearly 30,000 of you voiced your opinion against EPA regulations. Other organizations, such as The US Chamber of Commerce, American Solutions, FreedomWorks, and the Institute for Energy Research aggregated similar numbers, but there’s no mention of that.
Contrary to Administrator Jackson’s assertions, using the Clean Air Act to regulate CO2 would likely be the most expensive environmental regulation in history and will bypass the legislative process completely. While some Members of Congress undoubtedly support the EPA’s attempt to curb global warming, the fact that unelected and unaccountable EPA bureaucrats are trying to use backdoor rulemaking to reduce carbon dioxide makes it all the more objectionable.