EPA Doesn't Factor Jobs
Posted 06:47 PM ET- IBD Editorial
"Jobs: The EPA admits to Congress that it does not take into account the impact of its regulations on employment, the economy or international competitiveness. Neither, apparently, does the White House.
"This stunning revelation was made by EPA Administrator Mathy Stanislaus in response to a question by Colorado GOP Rep. Cory Gardner. It came during Stanislaus' testimony before the House Environment and Energy Committee on Thursday and exposes the Obama administration's public posture on jobs and the environment as a fraud.
"Gardner was asking about an EPA regulation that would govern industries that recycle coal and ash and other fossil fuel byproducts. Recycling is a good thing. Recycled coal ash makes concrete stronger, wallboard more durable and the shingles on your roof longer-lasting.
"We have not directly taken a look at jobs in this proposal," Stanislaus said. That's odd, since his testimony seems to contradict Executive Order 13563, issued by President Obama in January, which requires that all new rules issued by federal agencies take job creation into account. As we have learned, you have to watch what the administration does, not what it says.
"As reported in the Daily Caller, the EPA issued a statement on April 30, 2010, in the appendix of its regulatory impact analysis of its coal ash regulation that said the assessment "does not include either qualitative or quantitative estimation of the potential effects of the proposed rule on economic productivity, economic productivity, economic growth employment, job creation or international economic competitiveness."
"The EPA recently issued an endangerment finding that determined carbon dioxide, the product of human respiration and the basis of all plant and animal life on earth, is a dangerous pollutant. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the EPA that it had the authority under the Clean Air Act to do this, even though Congress repeatedly and explicitly refused to include so-called greenhouse gases in the act's regulatory scope.
"Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and a co-author with House committee Chairman Fred Upton of a bill to strip the EPA of authority to regulate greenhouse gases, has rightly noted that Congress deliberately did not regulate so-called greenhouse gases with the Clean Air Act, a bill designed to deal with air quality, not the climate.
"Inhofe notes that while the Supreme Court said the EPA had the discretion to "decide whether greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare," it did not authorize draconian regulations based on flawed science, regulations that would impose an economy-crushing hidden tax on businesses, energy producers and the American consumer."
"Jobs: The EPA admits to Congress that it does not take into account the impact of its regulations on employment, the economy or international competitiveness. Neither, apparently, does the White House.
"This stunning revelation was made by EPA Administrator Mathy Stanislaus in response to a question by Colorado GOP Rep. Cory Gardner. It came during Stanislaus' testimony before the House Environment and Energy Committee on Thursday and exposes the Obama administration's public posture on jobs and the environment as a fraud.
"Gardner was asking about an EPA regulation that would govern industries that recycle coal and ash and other fossil fuel byproducts. Recycling is a good thing. Recycled coal ash makes concrete stronger, wallboard more durable and the shingles on your roof longer-lasting.
"We have not directly taken a look at jobs in this proposal," Stanislaus said. That's odd, since his testimony seems to contradict Executive Order 13563, issued by President Obama in January, which requires that all new rules issued by federal agencies take job creation into account. As we have learned, you have to watch what the administration does, not what it says.
"As reported in the Daily Caller, the EPA issued a statement on April 30, 2010, in the appendix of its regulatory impact analysis of its coal ash regulation that said the assessment "does not include either qualitative or quantitative estimation of the potential effects of the proposed rule on economic productivity, economic productivity, economic growth employment, job creation or international economic competitiveness."
"The EPA recently issued an endangerment finding that determined carbon dioxide, the product of human respiration and the basis of all plant and animal life on earth, is a dangerous pollutant. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the EPA that it had the authority under the Clean Air Act to do this, even though Congress repeatedly and explicitly refused to include so-called greenhouse gases in the act's regulatory scope.
"Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and a co-author with House committee Chairman Fred Upton of a bill to strip the EPA of authority to regulate greenhouse gases, has rightly noted that Congress deliberately did not regulate so-called greenhouse gases with the Clean Air Act, a bill designed to deal with air quality, not the climate.
"Inhofe notes that while the Supreme Court said the EPA had the discretion to "decide whether greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare," it did not authorize draconian regulations based on flawed science, regulations that would impose an economy-crushing hidden tax on businesses, energy producers and the American consumer."
posted by Larry at 4/19/2011 05:05:00 AM
<< Home