While we seriously ponder Plan A/B options like geoengineering to
save the planet, the following political leadership disconnect with
the need for action is truly breathtaking. The WSJ bemoans the
"death-grip" of the ethanol lobby, but surely that is nothing
compared to the unmentioned power wielded by more conventional fuel
interests? -G
FEBRUARY 7, 2010, WSJ
Democratic Climate Revolt
A bipartisan effort to stop the EPA's anticarbon crusade.
The Obama Administration has been moving full-speed ahead on
anticarbon regulation, never mind waiting for Congress to pass a
bill. But now opposition is building among senior Democrats, with two
powerful committee Chairmen introducing a bill last week to bar the
Environmental Protection Agency from declaring that carbon is a
dangerous pollutant.
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson is busy writing new rules that would
let her drive a tax-and-regulation bulldozer through the U.S. economy
under laws never meant to apply to greenhouse gases. Ms. Jackson is
expected to issue new anticarbon regulations for cars and trucks next
month before moving on to power plants and other industries.
This is all too much for Missouri's Ike Skelton and Minnesota's
Collin Peterson, the Chairmen of the House Armed Services and
Agriculture Committees, respectively. Along with Missouri Republican
Jo Ann Emerson, they are pushing a two-page bill that would amend the
Clean Air Act to restore Congress's original intent and strip CO2 and
other greenhouse gases from the statutory language.
This is bipartisanship we can believe in. Such legislation would
vaporize the EPA's "endangerment finding" for carbon and thus require
the Administration to use democratic debate and persuasion if it
really wants to reshape the energy markets and impose huge new costs
on American consumers. What a thought.
"If Congress doesn't do something soon, the EPA is going to cram
these regulations through all on their own," Mr. Peterson said. "I
have no confidence that EPA can regulate greenhouse gases under the
Clean Air Act without severe harm to all taxpayers."
Added Mr. Skelton: "Simply put, we cannot tolerate turning over the
regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to unelected bureaucrats at
EPA. America's energy and environmental policies should be set by
Congress." Yes, they should be.
The Skelton-Peterson-Emerson bill follows a similar effort by North
Dakota Democrat Earl Pomeroy, not to mention Alaska Republican Lisa
Murkowski's coming "disapproval resolution" in the Senate that has
the support of Democrats Mary Landrieu, Ben Nelson and Blanche
Lincoln.
Our one caveat here is that Messrs. Skelton and Peterson are doing
the right thing for the wrong reason-specifically, to defend the
ethanol industry. Their bill includes provisions that would expand
the definition of renewable fuels and make it easier for corn ethanol
and soy biodiesel to qualify for federal tax credits. This is despite
the growing shelf of studies that common crop-based fuels increase
carbon emissions because of land-use changes and deforestation.
In any case, Ms. Jackson released final rules last week that would
allow ethanol to maintain its mandate on the U.S. fuel supply,
requiring her agency to back down from the more restrictive and
supposedly science-based rules that it had proposed last year. Ms.
Jackson insisted that EPA wasn't "dumbing down" its regulations, but
her bow to the ethanol lobby revealed the death-grip it exerts on
Congress.
Yet in the case of carbon regulation-an even dumber policy-we'll take
what we can get. If the power of farm-state politicians ends up
stopping the EPA's global-warming power grab, it would be the first
good thing ethanol has done for the country.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
