Growing government in pursuit of "absurdity"

'EPA 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'

Search for financial gain is driving the push for green technology

Against the backdrop of the Gulf oil spill, President Obama delivered a speech in June, which once more made the case for the reduction of U.S. dependence on fossil fuels.

“I will continue to make the case for a clean energy future wherever and whenever I can,” the president said. The country’s use of fossil fuels, he continued, “will jeopardize our national security, it will smother our planet and will continue to put our economy and our environment at risk.”

While Obama isn’t the first president to take on fossil fuels (in his 2007 State of the Union address, former President George W. Bush talked about the need to generate electric power through “clean coal technology, solar and wind energy”), the current administration has taken a far more aggressive position on the subject than any previous White House. Last Thursday, for example, the administration released a plan requiring federal agencies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the next ten years.

But this war against fossil fuels is being waged not just by President Obama and the executive branch of the federal government. In many ways, the president is simply the front man for the social, political and business elite that are driving the campaign for renewable energy to replace things like coal and natural gas.

Although fossil fuels account for upwards of 80 percent of the nation’s energy consumption, lobbyists, executives, environmentalists and politicians have come together to force a reduction in their use, as well as pass mandates for things like solar wind panels and electric cars.

What many of them fail to disclose is their vested financial stake in this new technology — technology that remains fundamentally uncompetitive with traditional sources of energy. In the words of Dan Kish, senior vice president at the Institute for Energy Research: “At the end of the day, the stuff they want us to buy is just more expensive.”

So who are some of the individuals behind the war against fossil fuels?

John Doerr and Al Gore, for starters. As The Daily Caller has reported, both men are major players in the green industrial complex. Doerr, perhaps the most famous venture capitalist in the Silicon Valley, has donated heavily to Democratic causes, lobbied for green energy initiatives, and then received stimulus dollars through the Department of Energy (DOE) in the form of grants for companies in which he has investments.

Gore has spent the last ten years lobbying for carbon taxes, the use of green technology, and legislation that would require it — all while standing to profit financially if such policies were implemented because he is a partner at Doerr’s venture capitalist firm. Like Doerr, Gore will benefit financially if the start-up companies he invests in do well – which is almost a guarantee if the federal government continues to shower them with tax dollars.

Then there’s General Electric (GE) CEO Jeffery Immelt and Duke Power CEO Jim Rogers. Both were involved in the creation of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), a lobbying organization comprised of businessmen that counts getting Waxman-Markey passed in the House last summer as one of its accomplishments.

Both GE and Duke make products that are essential in any transition from an energy industry based on fossil fuels, to one that uses renewable energy. It’s no wonder Immelt and Rogers are so invested in “energy independence.”

With its new powers to regulate greenhouse gases, the EPA could change statutes and destroy firms or industries

Sen. Lisa Murkowski's (R-AK) Resolution of Disapproval of the EPA's Endangerment Finding was defeated 53 to 47 this afternoon. Only six Democrats joined with 41 Republicans to vote yes.

"Senate Democrats voted today to allow the Obama EPA to wreck America through regulation of greenhouse gases. "Americans should consider those who voted against the Murkowski resolution to be enemies of sound science and economic recovery," said JunkScience.com's Steve Milloy.

It is difficult to overstate how much this action endangers the nation's economic outlook and the financial security of individual Americans. Bill Wilson, president of Americans for Limited Government (ALG) has released the following statement:

"The Senate has just voted to affirm that the EPA should be able to arbitrarily set the nation's energy policy by imposing unilateral restrictions on carbon emissions without any vote at all in Congress," he said. "This is a vote that will assuredly lead to higher energy prices, lost jobs, lost business, and the tyrannical imposition of a radical, environmentalist agenda upon the American people."

So long as the scientifically flawed endangerment finding remains in place there is no limit on how intrusive and expansive the EPA's new regulatory regime can become.

For starters, the federal EPA and its state counterparts will need to accommodate an estimated 41,000 Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) pre-construction permits annually as opposed to 280 it currently digests and over 6 million Title V operating permits per year versus 14,700.

This means a long and copious list of previously unregulated entities such as office buildings, apartment complexes, small manufacturers and small kitchens would come under government control. To alleviate the backlog, the EPA has proposed a "tailoring rule" to restrict the new regulations to large facilities. This is problematic in that the rule may not be legal under the CAA and could be overturned in court.

However, even if the tailoring rule withstands a legal challenge, the EPA will proceed to regulate smaller emission sources within a few years. This exercise cuts to the heart of why the Murkowski resolution is so critical. Essentially, the EPA stands poised to amend a statute without congressional consent in the name of environmentalism.

Moreover, even if the courts uphold EPA's tailoring rule it would not offer any safeguard against what is arguably the most pernicious aspect of the endangerment finding namely the rulemaking that would set the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) well below current atmospheric concentrations for greenhouse gases.

The economic fallout would be devastating. The lowered CO2 targets favored by environmental pressure groups, which are in the neighborhood of 390 parts per million to 350 ppm, would spur a global depression. This would enable environmental activists to use the CAA as vehicle for forced deindustrialization. Murkowski's resolution would have short-circuited the grand designs of green activists.

American freedom suffered a terrible but hopefully not an irrevocable setback today. It will take forceful leadership to restore our nation's elected branches back to their proper station. As Democracy gains ground in the Middle East thanks to perseverance of U.S. soldiers, it is ironic to see it lose ground here at home.

Murkowski bid to stop EPA power graf fails in 47-53 Senate vote

The Senate on Thursday halted Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s effort to curb the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from factories, power plants and other large polluters.

Her measure failed 47-53, largely on party lines, although the Alaska Republican had the support of six Democrats. Had it passed, the White House said this week that President Barack Obama would have vetoed it anyway.

The Senate spent six hours debating the measure, which came up in a rarely used procedural move known as a disapproval resolution. Because of the unusual nature of the measure, the Senate put aside all of its other business to take up Murkowski’s disapproval resolution.

The vote came the same day as a new Washington Post-ABC News poll showing broad public support for EPA oversight of harmful greenhouse gas emissions. About 71 percent of those surveyed support federal regulation of greenhouse gases from sources such as power plants, automobiles and factories, the poll found.

Calling the Clean Air Act “an awful choice for reducing” emissions that lead to global warming, Murkowski made the case that allowing the EPA to write such regulations would cost jobs, hurt the economy and cede to the Obama administration authority that should be up to Congress. Murkowski’s Alaska colleague, Democrat Mark Begich, voted against her proposal.

Post climategate, cap and trade not such a hot idea

Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., has signed on to legislation that would block the EPA from implementing its proposed greenhouse gas regulations. That’s a pretty clear sign that House Democrats are feeling the heat on climate change.

Skelton, 78, has been in Congress for 33 years and is chairman of the powerful House Armed Services Committee. But in 2010 he may face a tough re-election fight.

Last June, Skelton voted with his party leadership for a cap-and-trade bill. The measure passed the House 219-212.

According to Politico, Skelton has tried to present his cap-and-trade vote to the folks back home as an effort to protect people from the EPA. The thinking here is that since it would be Congress, not the Obama administration, writing the emissions reduction rules, it would be much better.

Whether or not Skelton’s constituents were buying that, it became irrelevant once the bill stalled in the Senate. That created the possibility that the EPA would simply assert the right to regulate greenhouse gases on its own.

Republicans, the Chamber of Commerce and now Democrats like House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, D-Minn., are pushing legislation to prevent that.

Skelton has signed on to Peterson’s bill, which would reverse the EPA finding that greenhouse gases are a pollutant.