EPA Admits CO2 Regulation Ineffective

The Environmental Protection Agency proposes to regulate carbon dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act. Such regulation is without scientific basis. An EPA internal analysis says that the proposed regulations would reduce the global mean temperature by only 0.006 to 0.015 of a degree Celsius by the year 2100.

Such regulation would be destructive to the economy. “CO2 restrictions implied in the EPA regulations would have serious economic, employment, and energy market impacts at the national level and that the impacts on low-income groups, the elderly, Blacks, and Hispanics would be especially severe.” – Dr. Roger Bezdek, Former Director, Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce.

The EPA is taking its authority for such regulation from a March 2007 Supreme Court decision Massachusetts v. EPA, where the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA may regulate green house gases. “May” regulate, not had to. But EPA administrator Lisa Jackson says she is legally obligated to do it. Not so, but perhaps she is politically obligated to do it as a part of the administration’s anti-business agenda, its grab for more power, and as an exercise of the Green Religion.

Advertisements

3 comments

  1. The global warming/cap and trade scam officially dies in January, 2011, with the new congress.  The EPA should be defunded. 
    As for the old men (and women) on SCOTUS, they need to take a short course on the scientific method.

    1. We’ll see who you’ll be calling when your water is making you sick. I’m sure the miners will clean it right up for you. Oh no, that company is out of business now, and the new owners aren’t liable! Too bad we gutted all the regulations and the regulators. But hey, we got a couple of good years of jobs out of it!

  2. Wow, I thought these same tired arguments had been abandoned. So, how do you explain the demise of the timber industry in the east coast, and then the midwest? They cut all of the commercial lumber (i.e. old growth)…and we’ve reduced the range of wild animals, especially those higher on the food chain (that means predators) by some 90%. But you’re right…what’s another 10%. You’re grand kids can see bears in the zoo…it’s the same thing right?

Comments are closed.