PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Air ... we don't need no stinkin' air


Mr. Laz
02-18-2011, 02:16 PM
House Votes To Block EPA From Regulating Greenhouse Gases (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/18/house-votes-to-block-epa-_n_825259.html)

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/249334/thumbs/r-HOUSE-BLOCKS-EPA-large570.jpg
The Associated Press 02/18/11 02:28 PM http://s.huffpost.com/images/v/ap_wire.png


Submit this story
digg reddit (http://reddit.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2F2011%2F02%2F18%2Fhouse-votes-to-block-epa-_n_825259.html&title=House+Votes+To+Block+EPA+From+Regulating+Greenhouse+Gases) stumble (http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2F2011%2F02%2F18%2Fhouse-votes-to-block-epa-_n_825259.html&title=House+Votes+To+Block+EPA+From+Regulating+Greenhouse+Gases)




The Republican-controlled House has voted to block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases that scientists say cause global warming.
The 249-177 vote added the regulation ban to a sweeping spending bill that would fund the government through Sept. 30. The restriction is opposed by the Obama administration, which is using its regulatory powers to curb greenhouse gases after global warming legislation collapsed last year. The administration also says the ban would cost thousands of construction jobs.
EPA has already taken steps to regulate global warming pollution from vehicles and the largest factories and industrial plants. It is expected to soon roll out rules that target refineries and power plants.
Texas Republican Ted Poe pressed the anti-EPA measure. His Texas district is home to many oil refineries.

bevischief
02-18-2011, 02:18 PM
Good. Otherwise the price of everything would rise. And countless people would lose their jobs.

Simplex3
02-18-2011, 02:18 PM
If you want to regulate that let's talk, but to do it through the back door via an EPA bureaucrat isn't the way to do it. The absurd part is Congress passing a law to tell an agency to stop doing things they shouldn't be doing anyway.

BucEyedPea
02-18-2011, 02:28 PM
If you want to regulate that let's talk, but to do it through the back door via an EPA bureaucrat isn't the way to do it. The absurd part is Congress passing a law to tell an agency to stop doing things they shouldn't be doing anyway.

:thumb:

Chief Henry
02-18-2011, 04:43 PM
Good. Otherwise the price of everything would rise. And countless people would lose their jobs.

this

Brock
02-18-2011, 05:52 PM
That's good news.

HonestChieffan
02-18-2011, 06:07 PM
excellent.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-18-2011, 06:07 PM
Huzzah! Huzzah!

RaiderH8r
02-18-2011, 07:10 PM
If one understands the Clean Air Act then one knows that its structure was never intended for regulating such widespread emissions. The EPA knows this and has endeavored to craft a "Tailoring rule" to avoid implementing the statory threshold of 250 tons to qualify for a permit under the CAA. The tailoring rule initially sought to increase the de minimis threshold required for a permit to 25,000 tons and subsequently 75,000 tons. Their statutory authority to do this is suspect, at best. There is no language within the Clean Air Act which expressly authorizes EPA to take such a course of action. However the EPA has chosen to hang their hat on the Mass vs. EPA ruling where the ruling allowed some wiggle room for "administrative burden" (ie can EPA reasonably manage such a regulation and permit process?) and "absurd results" (will the regulation yield, you guessed it, absurd results? Will every house, car, cow's ass etc. be required to apply for a permit to fart each year?). However, should anybody sue to enjoin EPA from implementing their tailoring rule then the EPA must rule on whether or not they can regulate GHGs (and their intent is to do so) at which point the 250 tons threshold applies. 250 tons would require almost every business in America to apply for a clean air permit which was never the legislative intent of the act nor will the EPA be able to manage such a program. In short it would grind American business to a screeching halt.

Understand, EPA's tailoring rule has no basis in science whatsoever and they can not quantify the impact on overall global ghg concentrations. 75K tons was selected to meet the absurd results/administrative necessity criteria.