House GOP to Prevent EPA Regulation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
January 11, 2011
Having taken control of the House of Representatives only days ago, the new Republican majority has threatened to gut funding of the Environmental Protection Agency in an attempt to prevent federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions that drive potentially catastrophic climate change. Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), chairman of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, has stated he will seek to scale back the EPA's regulatory powers.
A statement released by Simpson's office said the Congressman has his "eyes set on EPA. . . . The EPA is the scariest agency in the federal government, an agency run amok." Simpson's statement further added: "Its bloated budget has allowed it to drastically expand its regulatory authority in a way that is hurting our economy and pushing an unwelcomed government further into the lives of Idahoans. As Chairman of this subcommittee, I look forward to bringing some common sense to the EPA and some certainty for our nation's job creators."
Simpson has supported past efforts to derail the EPA's greenhouse gas emissions regulations. Last week Simpson also co-sponsored legislation that would strip the EPA of its authority to regulate greenhouse gases. Funding restrictions in appropriations bills are an additional tactic GOP lawmakers are exploring to prevent implementation of the EPA's new greenhouse gas rules. Two EPA regulations became effective at the start of 2011: new vehicles must follow tighter CAFE standards; and power plants, refineries, and large factories will require permits for their emissions when they expand or build new facilities. The EPA also provided a timeline for additional greenhouse gas regulations. The agency is scheduled to propose "performance standards" for power plants in July 2011 and for refineries in December 2011, and will finalize standards for those sectors in May 2012 and November 2012, respectively.
Senate Democrats have vowed to block House Republicans' attempts to derail the EPA's regulatory authority. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) emphasized the benefits of EPA's limits on emissions from power plants, oil refineries, chemical facilities and other "stationary sources," arguing that the public should understand the negative consequences of undoing rules written to protect public health. "We're in great danger, and it fails to reach the public's interest because there's a tendency to look at things on a much more short-term basis," as opposed to the long-term footprint of a changing climate, Lautenberg added.
#1 gray1 on Friday January 14, 2011 at 3:16pm
The general discussion goes that our many various federal regulatory agencies are assuming authority for creating and enforcing laws well beyond the intended scope of their congressional charters as well as in many cases never having any actual constitutional basis for much of what they are doing in the first place. This problem becomes increasingly recognized with any shift in the power structure across divergent ideologies whereby the outright authoritarianism aspects of our out-of-control federal bureaucratic monster rears its ugly head just a little too high.
I seem to recall reading something about the rights of the people (as individual citizens) and civil powers not specified herein being reserved to the States… now where did I read that? Members of our Congress are apparently too busy raising money for their next election cycle to even read the many bills they vote on and thus pin our futures on, much less live up to their oaths to quite simply protect and defend our Constitution. It seems most are too dimwitted to understand it much less defend its relatively simple terms.
Oaths… now why doesn’t this particular organization point out that oaths of such are of a specific religious nature and perhaps are thereby unconstitutional. The oaths are not enforced anyway, and besides, going through such meaningless motions are a waste of time that just makes liars of them all.
As a side note, it it is simple to point out to “Christians” that Jesus Christ preached in his “Sermon on the Mount” that such oaths should not be taken and are “of the evil one”. (Mat 5:37) But that much is proven on a regular basis it seems, regardless of which “side” you are on.
#2 gray1 on Monday January 17, 2011 at 12:13pm
A 30,000 year oral history? Amazing! Did you ever play the game where a group of people sits in a circle and one whispers something to another who in turn whispers same to the next until it makes the full go around? Additionally, we are now of the opinion that so called “eye-witness testimony” is probably the least reliable thing you can get. That is not to say that the very mystical ancient Aussies couldn’t keep things of very long term record without a hitch.