need responsible regulations, not regulations that have gone wild. For example, the EPA has a rule that is going to be implemented
Jan. 1, 2012, where they're going to begin to regulate dust. That's right, dust. It's called PM 2.5. That is focusing on the
wrong thing." Herman Cain
"Today we’re taking a common-sense
step to reduce pollution in our air, protect the planet for our children, and move us into a new era of American energy,"
said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. "Right now there are no limits to the amount of carbon pollution that future
power plants will be able to put into our skies – and the health and economic threats of a changing climate continue
to grow. We’re putting in place a standard that relies on the use of clean, American made technology to tackle a challenge
that we can’t leave to our kids and grandkids."
is missing from this statement is that regular citizens are under direct assault from their utility companies that force "so
called" Green electric generation into the mix. Soon people will be living like beggars in order to pay the overpriced
schemes that impoverish the population.
The latest outrage from the EPA
bootjack thugs is the EPA Emission Rules To Effectively
Ban New Coal Plants. "The Environmental Protection Agency effectively banned new coal-fired
power plants Tuesday, announcing emission rules that will make them uneconomical to build. This follows other recent rules
squeezing coal. The actions show the administration following through on an earlier promise to crack down on the industry
via regulation after the "cap and trade" carbon bill stalled in Congress in 2010."The proof of Obama ‘All the Above’
Strategy Does Not Include Coal, is seen by his EPA policy.
"The goal of President Obama’s
"all of the above" energy policy is to drive up the costs on traditional energy sources, leveling the playing field
so green energy power can someday become competitive economically.
if the White House energy policy begins to phase out coal power before green energy sources are ready to take over, how is
President Obama going to charge the battery in his Chevy Volt?"
With the demise of the nuclear alternative after the Fukushima cover-up, where is the sensible acknowledgement that
electric generation requires a reliable source of energy?
Investor Business Daily cites the crucial reality. "Coal is an essential part of a diverse,
reliable and affordable energy mix, supplying nearly 40% of our electricity," said Bruce Josten, the Chamber of Commerce's
executive vice president, in a statement. "It remains a cost-effective and secure source of power in a time of soaring
Environmental whacks that hail shutting down electric generation from coal
are utterly mad. Since this country has abundant and cheap coal deposits, powering generation plants just does not fit with
their goal of turning the consumer into a subservient slave. Left out of this equation is that effective banning of new coal
generation will simply divert coal sales for export to China and India.
the intense use and continuous building of new coal facilities, the notorious record of the Chinese and India subcontinent
to foster clear air standards is pale in comparison to the current emissions from U.S. generation. The EPA will do nothing
to stop the use of coal oversea.
"Despite the EPA's insistence that the new rule will still allow advanced coal plants
to be built, many critics aren't convinced. "This really is a ban on new coal-fired generation. The EPA knows that,"
said Jeff Holmstead, a partner at Bracewell & Giuliani LLP in Washington and former head of the EPA's air office under
President George W. Bush.
With the new rule, the mining industry will
look to the export market for relief. Asian coal demand more than doubled in the past decade, led by China and India. The
U.S. Energy Information Administration expects Chinese coal demand to rise by 2.4% annually through 2035, almost ten times
as fast as U.S. demand. However, U.S. miners are constrained by rail and port limitations, and exports will only partially
offset declining domestic consumption."
The fundamental issue with the EPA is that it is an out
of control agency. Accountability for its abuses is long overdue. However, recent Presidents and Congresses refuse to set
a rational energy policy because the hidden objective is to destroy the domestic economy.
"Case in point: regulations subjecting existing
coal plants that wish to make upgrades to costly and exhaustive New Source Review requirements, which actually discourage
energy efficiency and safety improvements that plants would undertake on their own accord.
Congress should step up and stop the EPA from bypassing Congress’s sound rejection of cap and trade. The EPA
regulations on CO2 are just one of those other ways to skin the cat, as President Obama famously promised."
Such excess and high-handedness from the EPA is even more evident in the following
U.S. Supreme Court blunted a commonly used Environmental Protection Agency enforcement tool, siding with landowners and companies
that said the federal agency was abusing its power.
today unanimously ruled in favor of an Idaho couple blocked by the EPA from building a home on land the agency says is restricted
wetlands. The justices said the couple can go directly to court to challenge an EPA order requiring them to restore property
they had begun preparing for construction.
The decision weakens
the force of so-called administrative compliance orders that the EPA issues on average 1,500 times a year to businesses and
individuals. The orders demand an end to alleged violations, applying fines that pressure owners to settle. The government
said those orders couldn’t be appealed to a court."
The Environmental Protection Agency functions as a gatekeeper for the all knowing and powerful Wizard of Oz, the
despotic State. The legal hurdles that forced a Supreme Court case just to obtain permission to file a court challenge against
the EPA draconian rules are absurd. Likewise, the motivation to prohibit the use of coal for electrical generation solidified
the rule of the tyrants.
Then again, do not place your faith
that the Supreme Court gets it correct often.
An analysis by Steven F. Hayward in the American Enterprise Institute, applies today as it did when
first published back in 2006.
"This is preface to a big story that is getting surprisingly little coverage in the media this week, namely,
the design of the Environmental Protection Agency to double its budget, and to increase its number of employees more than
tenfold, from the current level of about 18,000 to more than 230,000, over the next four years. And this just for one single
program: the greenhouse gas regulations under the Clean Air Act. And all of this arises from the Supreme Court's botched 2007
decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which said the EPA could regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, even though
Congress never intended this, and even said so at the time during floor debate over the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.
Here's the problem, long predicted by me and lots of other folks who know how the
Clean Air Act works. The Act says any stationary source that emits as little as 100 tons a year of a pollutant must get annual
permits from state agencies and the EPA. 100 tons is a lot if you're looking at pollutants like volatile organic gases (unburned
hydrocarbons) that contribute to ozone, but is a tiny amount for carbon dioxide. Your average fast-food restaurant or donut
shop or apartment building easily emits 100 tons of CO2. Right now about 14,000 stationary sources have to get annual emission
permits under the Act. By regulating CO2 through the Clean Air Act, the number of businesses that will require EPA permits
will be over 6 million."
The Federal executive
branch has scores of agencies that act well beyond the intention, if not, the spirit of the law. Power hungry autocrats that
lost the cover of "good intentions" decades ago, devise these governmental regulations. The ultimate goal is to
synchronize a Cap and Trade policy through administrative ordinances. Congress needs to focus on repealing legislation that
creates and funds rogue agencies like the EPA. Clean air is important, but singling out coal for replacement by "Green"
alternative energy is simply suicidal.
Soon the EPA will impose
a tax on your own breathing, since you are a CO2 exhaling machine.
emissions under the Clean Air Act will burden the economy with higher energy costs, higher administrative compliance costs
for businesses, higher bureaucratic costs for enforcing the regulations, and higher legal costs from the inevitable litigation.
- Heritage Foundation