Tag: United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA is at it again: Obama promise to kill coal industry.

Obama and his donkey cohorts are certainly not happy that anyone is pointing out how radical environmentalist assholes at the EPA are actively taking measures to keep Obama’s promise to destroy the coal industry, but the plan exists. And they are in a hurry to foist this massive pile of dung that will cost our economy some $700 billion out of fear of a Romney presidency.

President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency has devoted an unprecedented number of bureaucrats to finalizing new anti-coal regulations that are set to be released at the end of November, according to a source inside the EPA.

More than 50 EPA staff are now crashing to finish greenhouse gas emission standards that would essentially ban all construction of new coal-fired power plants. Never before have so many EPA resources been devoted to a single regulation. The independent and non-partisan Manhattan Institute estimates that the EPA’s greenhouse gas coal regulation will cost the U.S. economy $700 billion.

The rush is a major sign of panic by environmentalists inside the Obama administration. If Obama wins, the EPA would have another four full years to implement their anti-fossil fuel agenda. But if Romney wins, regulators will have a very narrow window to enact a select few costly regulations that would then be very hard for a President Romney to undo.

WTF? The EPA passes regulation and congress again is side stepped? Is this shit even legal?

Hey people in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia! That asshole that says we should stay the course with him, because he has done such a great job for the last 4 years – everything bad is Boosh’s fault too! – on the economy and energy, plans to shut down the coal industry your state so depends on. Obama meant it when he said he was going to kill coal as a source of energy, and we are seeing it in Technicolor. Of course the usual idiots will pretend this is not going to kill the coal industry, because it doesn’t explicitly spell out that’s the intention, and argue the same stupid semantics they did the last 4 years to pretend these environmental radicals do not give a flying fuck how expensive energy becomes for the serfs.

At the risk of being made fun off, I have to say that as a Redskin’s fan I rooted yesterday for the Carolina Panthers to win, because of this. Don’t worry. Obama has a job prospect when he is sent packing after tomorrow.

Out the Door, Line on the Left, One Cross Each

Well, this resolved itself before I even had a chance to comment:

The Obama administration’s top environmental official in the oil-rich South Central region has resigned after Republicans targeted him over remarks made two years ago when he used the word “crucify” to describe how he would go after companies violating environmental laws.

Republicans in Congress had called for Armendariz’ firing after Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe highlighted the May 2010 speech last week as proof of what he refers to as EPA’s assault on energy, particularly the technique of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.

I’m with Althouse on this one. The problem with Armendariz’ comments wasn’t that they were controversial or offensive to Christians. The problem was that they were true.

This is how the EPA operates. And to be fair, it’s kind of how it has to operate. There aren’t enough regulators to check on everyone and make sure they are compliant with the law. So they compensate by coming down on the miscreants they do catch like a ton of bricks. That’s the entire basis of preventative law enforcement.

The problem is that the EPA can be very arbitrary in exactly who they come down on. His analogy is dead on: they are crucifying the first five people they run into, making examples of them whether they’ve really broken the law or not. They frequently punish people who’ve done nothing wrong and are known to prefer targets that lack the resources to fight an unjust persecution.

I have no problem with “crucifying” companies that flagrantly break the law and pollute the environment (example: BP, still awaiting prosecution). But I do have a problem with crucifying random businesses to make a point. Armendariz was caught revealing the way the game is played. And that bought him an appointment with the undercarriage of the nearest bus.

The New EPA

Updated Below

Holy firking schnit:

The Environmental Protection Agency has said new greenhouse gas regulations, as proposed, may be “absurd” in application and “impossible to administer” by its self-imposed 2016 deadline. But the agency is still asking for taxpayers to shoulder the burden of up to 230,000 new bureaucrats — at a cost of $21 billion — to attempt to implement the rules.

The proposed regulations would set greenhouse gas emission thresholds above which businesses must file for an EPA permit and complete extra paperwork in order to continue operating. If the EPA wins its court battle and fully rolls out the greenhouse gas regulations, the number of businesses forced into this regulatory regime would grow tremendously — from approximately 14,000 now to as many as 6.1 million.

That’s just the EPA’s cost. Estimated. You can imagine the compliance costs this will impose on industry. The upside is that it will at least create some jobs.

Just a reminder of the background — the EPA is trying to use the Clean Air Act to bypass Congress and impose their own regulatory structure on greenhouse gases. So their problem is not that Congress has given them an unworkable regime; the problem is that they can’t possibly meet their own outside-the-law regime.

Even as someone who accepts AGW, this is absurd. It’s a massive “break glass in case of emergency” burden that will result, if everything works out, in lowering the temperature of the planet by an amount that can’t be measured. I don’t agree with the current push to abolish the EPA. But Congress should put the kibosh on this immediately, preferably as part of a larger bill that will forbid them from going beyond their existing mandate.

Let Obama veto it if he wants. He can explain to the American people why he’s imposing such a gigantic burden during a recession.

Update: Mother Jones clarifies, from the actual filing, that what EPA is trying to do is avoid such a massive expansion (which they will never get) and limit their restriction to the large CO2 emitters. They are essentially arguing that the current mandate (their own) is impossible.

This does not change the basic problem: EPA has dug a hole for themselves by asserting, and getting court authority for, more power than they should have. They are already illustrating why a complex cap and trade scheme will almost certainly fail. I didn’t think such a huge expansion of EPA would actually happen. But it illustrates the scale of runaway regulation.

The Whole Ozone

Hmmm:

President Barack Obama, citing the struggling economy, asked the Environmental Protection Agency on Friday to withdraw an air-quality rule that Republicans and business groups said would cost millions of jobs.

The surprise move—coming on the same day as a dismal unemployment report—reflected the energy industry’s importance as a rare bright spot in adding U.S. jobs. The tighter standards for smog-forming ozone could have forced states and cities to limit some oil-and-gas projects.

In making the move, the White House clearly judged that it had more to lose from industry and Republican criticism than it had to gain from environmental groups who support the rule.

The implementation of the ozone rule was difficult to defend. Bush had just lowered permissible ozone levels only a year before. Implementing this was going to blow a hole in the economy of up to $90 billion (assuming the standards can be met, which is not clear). Of course, the EPA estimated it would save 12,000 lives a year (perhaps; it’s disputed). But, even assuming they’re right, that’s $7.5 million per life saved. $7.5 million should save a lot more than one life.

Naturally, the Left is furious. I’ve heard more than one liberal say this is the last straw with Obama. Of course, they’ve been saying that since January 21 of 2009, so take that with some salt.

I think what’s happened here is that Obama got caught between panders. He tried to pander to the environmentalists by rushing in ozone standards too quickly and without proper study. I have no idea if he ever intended to enforce them, but he’s at the point now where he can’t. The economy is too weak and resistance is too strong. So he panders back by delaying them.

Result? The Right is pissed that he tried to put the standards in place and the Left is pissed because he didn’t. Well played.

I suspect, however, that we haven’t heard the end of this. As usual, the Left is caterwauling because they’re not getting right now what they’re likely to get later. The Clean Air Act is up for renewal in 2013. And there’s an election before then. It’s likely that ozone standards will be tightened at some point. Hopefully, they’ll wait for the technology to catch up to the point where the economic impact is minimal.

Remember that discussion..

Where I pointed out Obama’s green agenda was anti-energy, and by his own admission – that video people told me didn’t prove anything, despite Obama saying that energy prices where going to go up, and up drastically, if he got his way – only to be hammered for putting words in his mouth? Well, we are now further down the line, and team Obama has been real busy, and guess what we are now finding out: Obama meant what he said about closing down plants and energy prices going up. Oh yes, the piece is by that retard Ezra Klein, and he is really, really trying hard to spin this in a positive manner for the Obama Administration and for the greens, but the facts are indisputable, according to Klein himself:

First, the report agrees that the new rules will likely force the closure of many coal plants between now and 2017, although it’s difficult to know precisely how many. For green groups, that’s a feature, not a bug: Many of these will be the oldest and dirtiest plants around. About 110 gigawatts, or one-third of all coal capacity in the United States, came online between 1940 and 1969. Many of these plants were grandfathered in under the Clean Air Act, and about two-thirds of them don’t have scrubbers:

Anything past that is bullshit. We have not built new generation in the US to come close to covering even 5% of what will be lost, and now we are getting an admission that as much as 1/3 of our power generation capability is about to go offline. And how does Klein explain that impact away?

CRS notes that many of the plants most affected by the new EPA rules were facing extinction anyway: “Many of these plants are inefficient and are being replaced by more efficient combined cycle natural gas plants, a development likely to be encouraged if the price of competing fuel—natural gas—continues to be low, almost regardless of EPA rules.”

Oh yes! They where going to be shut down sooner or later anyway, so losing them all in a very short time span shouldn’t really mean anything. The rest is plain and outright nonsense. Talk about being out there. Seriously, this is how the left thinks. I wish the universe would provide some justice assuring that the nightmare this idiotic scenario is going to cause everyone disproportionately impacts leftist blue states the hardest.

Unfortunately it seems the libs did this to disproportionately hit those red states that have faired the best during this recessionary period they gave us, and I am not surprised. And this news comes at a time when we find out that the green push is failing. Maybe the good news is that with nobody buying those over expensive government pushes stupid electric cars, the draw on the grid this phenomenon would have caused won’t become a factor. Little consolation for those that will see a doubling in their energy costs and even rolling black outs. Maybe the EPA can claim this then is all just another from of government stimulus, like some other idiots did about welfare, too.

At this point the Carter years are starting to look like they where pretty decent compared to what Obama is doing.