Seeing through the EPA’s BS
Looking back at seven years of ever-looming — yet constantly narrowly-averted — GHG emissions regulations, it seems like it might have been a lot less painful to industry and damaging to the economy if the Bushies would have laid out a simple set of expectations early on and then just let us handle it from there. Even if the resultant regulations wouldn’t have been nearly as stringent as most of us would have liked, industry might have benefited from the certainty.
… Last year the Supreme Court ruled, contrary to the Bush administration’s wishes, that greenhouse gases were a pollutant that came under the jurisdiction of the EPA. So the EPA’s scientists took a look, and they concluded that, yes, greenhouse gases contributed to global warming and ought to be regulated under the Clean Air Act. The White House, of course, was not happy about this, so on Thursday EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson deep-sixed the scientific findings and opened up a “lengthy public comment period” to give
corporate contributorsthe public a chance to weigh in on this.
This cynical step by EPA to announce an “Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” in the coming months should be seen for what it is: an “Aspirational Notice of Procrastinational Rulemaking.”