June 2010

People across the world “are being battered by surging food prices that are dragging more people into poverty, fueling political tensions and forcing some to give up eating meat, fruit and even tomatoes,” reports the Associated Press. High food prices are partly the result of “demand for crops to use in biofuels” like ethanol, which the government subsidizes.

Food prices will rise even further if the global warming legislation backed by President Obama passes, since it expands ethanol subsidies that reward big corporations for turning food into fuel. Ethanol subsidies damage the environment by wiping out forests, polluting water supplies, and eroding the soil. By converting food into fuel, they cause famines and food riots in the world’s poorest countries.  That fuels Islamic extremism in Afghanistan and the Middle East.

President Obama, the biggest recipient of campaign cash from BP, is using BP’s oil spill to push for a global warming bill that is chock full of corporate welfare and environment-destroying ethanol subsidies. The bill was crafted by lobbyists for big companies like BP: “For years, BP has lobbied for climate change legislation, until recently running around with the U.S. Climate Action Partnership.” BP has a much worse safety and environmental record than most oil companies, which drill safely and avoid oil spills.

Democratic strategist James Carville, who was raised in Louisiana, called Obama’s handling of the BP oil spill “lackadaisical” and “unbelievable” in its “stupidity.”

Until recently, the Obama administration ignored the pleas of Louisiana’s governor to allow Louisiana to build barrier islands to contain the damage from the oil spill, citing bureaucratic procedures. Yet the Obama administration granted BP a waiver from environmental regulations in April 2009. ABC News reports that the “top recipient of BP-related donations during the 2008 cycle was President Barack Obama himself, who collected $71,000.”

The global warming legislation backed by President Obama would drive jobs overseas, since it would impose a costly cap-and-trade carbon rationing scheme on American industry, while leaving foreign plants operated by multinational corporations unregulated. Companies with plants overseas are lobbying for the global warming legislation, which would give them an advantage over American competitors. The legislation Obama backs may perversely increase pollution by driving industry overseas to places with fewer environmental regulations.

Talk about chutzpah.  President Obama, the biggest recipient of campaign cash from BP, is using BP’s oil spill to push for a global warming bill that is chock full of corporate welfare and environment-destroying ethanol subsidies.  And the bill is one crafted by lobbyists for big companies like BP: “For years, BP has lobbied for climate change legislation, until recently running around with the U.S. Climate Action Partnership.”

The Obama Administration has done little about the oil spill, even though “BP’s oil gusher is in federal waters, on seabed leased from the federal government,” giving the government the moral responsibility to do something to stop the spill.  Instead, it is adding insult to injury for suffering Gulf Coast residents by imposing a ban on oil drilling that will wipe out at least 20,000 jobs in the Gulf, and perhaps more, according to Louisiana’s governor.

The ban doesn’t apply just to BP, a company with an unusually bad safety record which has been described as a “serial environmental criminal.”  Instead, it applies to the oil industry generally, including the vast majority of oil companies that make safety a priority in drilling (and whose oil wells did not spill even during hurricanes).

Democratic strategist James Carville, who was raised in Louisiana, called Obama’s handling of the oil spill “lackadaisical“ and “unbelievable“ in its “stupidity.”

Until recently, the Obama administration ignored the pleas of Louisiana’s governor to allow Louisiana to build barrier islands to contain the damage from the oil spill, citing bureaucratic procedures.  Yet the Obama administration granted BP a waiver from environmental regulations in April 2009. ABC News reports that the “top recipient of BP-related donations during the 2008 cycle was President Barack Obama himself, who collected $71,000.”

The global warming legislation backed by President Obama would also drive jobs overseas, since it would impose a costly cap-and-trade carbon rationing scheme on American industry, while leaving foreign plants operated by multinational corporations unregulated.  Companies with plants overseas are lobbying for the global-warming legislation, which would give them an advantage over American competitors.  The legislation Obama backs may perversely increase pollution by driving industry overseas to places with fewer environmental regulations.

Twice during the past six months, the eco-litigators at the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) have underscored the political necessity for Congress to overturn EPA’s endangerment finding.

Yes, that is very far from CBD’s intention. CBD is a fervent defender of the endangerment finding, the December 2009 rulemaking in which EPA concluded that greenhouse emissions endanger public health and welfare.

The endangerment finding compels EPA to establish greenhouse gas emission standards for new motor vehicles, which in turn makes carbon dioxide (CO2) a “regulated air pollutant”  under the Clean Air Act, which in turn makes ”major” stationary sources of CO2 ”subject to regulation” under the Act’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) pre-construction permitting program and Title V operating permits program. CBD must be thrilled by the endangerment finding and the regulatory cascade it has triggered.

CBD wants EPA to follow through on all the regulatory commitments logically entailed by the endangerment finding and CO2’s new status as a “regulated air pollutant.” But that’s where things get dicey for President Obama and his congressional allies. Once the regulatory genie is out of the bottle, Obama officials may not be able to control it.

Even EPA acknowledges that applying the Act’s permitting programs to CO2 leads to “absurd results.” For example, EPA and its state counterparts would have to process 41,000 PSD permit applications per year (instead of 280) and 6.1 million Title V permits per year (instead of 14,700). The resulting administrative quagmire would paralyze environmental enforcement, slam the brakes on development, and force millions of firms to operate in legal limbo. A more potent anti-stimulus package would be hard to imagine. 

To avoid this red ink nightmare, EPA has issued a Tailoring Rule that exempts small CO2 emitters from the Act’s permitting programs for six years. However, nothing in the statute authorizes EPA to suspend or modify the permitting requirements. In reality, EPA’s Tailoring Rule is an amending rule. It’s anybody’s guess whether courts will uphold this breach of the separation of powers.

Even if they do, the endangerment finding will still endanger the U.S. economy and our constitutional system of separated powers and democratic accountability. Thank you, CBD, for bringing this peril to light!

Last December, CBD petitioned EPA to establish national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for greenhouse gases set below current atmospheric levels. CBD is only acting on the obvious implication of EPA’s assertion that endangerment comes from the “elevated concentration” of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Why should Obama and congressional leaders worry? The Clean Air Act requires states to come into attainment with a primary (health-based) NAAQS within five or at most 10 years. Yet not even a global depression lasting several decades would suffice to lower CO2 concentrations from today’s level (390 parts per million) to the stabilization target (350 parts per million) demanded by CBD and its co-petitioners. Because EPA may not take compliance costs into account when establishing NAAQS, the endangerment finding sets the stage for eco-litigators to transform the Act into a de-industrialization mandate.  No elected official wants to take ownership of so crazy a policy. If CBD prevails, however, Obama and the Democrats — the Party of Endangerment — will be left holding the bag. 

Yesterday, CBD filed suit to overturn EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s reconsideration of her predecessor Stephen Johnson’s memorandum determining when a pollutant is “subject to regulation” under the PSD program. Jackson’s reconsideration held that a pollutant is subject to regulation not when EPA finalizes an emissions control rulemaking but when the rule takes effect. Since EPA’s greenhouse gas motor vehicle standards rule does not take effect until January 2011, Jackson concluded that EPA may not regulate greenhouse gases from stationary sources until then. CBD says EPA should have started already to regulate large emitters via PSD.

CBD’s lawsuit makes EPA regulation of greenhouse gases a real-time issue for this Congress, not just a post-election issue for the next Congress. It increases the pressure on Democrats to get the monkey off their back. If courts strike down Jackson’s reconsideration, they will be more likely to strike down the Tailoring Rule, which undeniably flouts statutory language. Courts will also be more likely to look favorably on CBD’s NAAQS petition, which simply demands that EPA, having made an endangerment finding, follow the letter of the law.   

Democratic Senators who don’t want to bet their political futures on EPA’s ability to control the cascading effects of greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean Air Act – or who simply believe that climate policy is too important to be made by non-elected bureaucrats, trial lawyers, and activist judges appointed for life – will soon get their opportunity.

On June 10, the Senate will vote on a resolution of disapproval (S.J.Res.26), sponsored by Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, to nullify the legal force and effect of EPA’s endangerment finding. If enacted, S.J.Res.26 will:

1. Avert the threat of an administrative meltdown under the PSD and Title V programs.
2. Avert the threat of sky-is-the-limit, money-is-no-object regulation of greenhouse gases via the NAAQS program.
3. Avoid the need for EPA to play lawmaker and ’amend” a statute it is supposed merely to administer.

Most importantly, enacting Sen. Murkowski’s resolution will ensure that the big decisions about the content and direction of national policy are made by the people’s representatives, as the Constitution requires.

“President Obama tried Wednesday to channel public outrage about the Gulf of Mexico oil spill into support for a climate-change bill, seeking to redefine an issue that threatens to tarnish his presidency,” according to the Washington Post.

I’ve written on how absolutely anything, and I do mean anything, can and has been used to show the ill impact of global warming, including:

Brain-eating amoebae, brothels struggle, cannibalism, circumcision in decline, Earth to explode, earth upside down, football team migration, Garden of Eden wilts, invasion of king crabs, Italy robbed of pasta, killer cornflakes, Loch Ness monster dead, mammoth dung melt, opera house to be destroyed, seals mating more, spiders invade Scotland, squid larger, squid tamed, UFO sightings, Vampire moths, violin decline, witchcraft executions.

Now it appears absolutely anything can be used as an excuse to pass climate change legislation. I think we should all help our president by coming up with even more reasons! I’ll start it off and you can send your contributions, which I can then post and subsequently hand deliver to our Chief Executive. The best will probably be those that relate in some way specifically to Obama.

• The pet dog, Bo, piddled the carpet in the Oval office.
• “Those idiot birthers just won’t quit!”
• “30 Rock” last night was a rerun.
• Obama saw a cloud formation that looked just like global warming.
• His organic bread turned green overnight. (No, wait! That happened to me!)
• “Those damned “v1agra” and “V!agra” emails are getting through the spam filter.
• Michelle had “a headache” last night.
• To honor veterans of the Seminole Indian War.
• Obama had the strangest dream in which cute little bunnies became man-eating snails.
• They’ve released another DVD edition of The Wizard of Oz.

BP, which is responsible for the terrible oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, has a safety record infinitely worse than other oil companies, which make safety a priority in drilling for oil.  ABC News reports that “BP ran up 760 ‘egregious, willful’ safety violations, while Sunoco and Conoco-Phillips each had eight, Citgo had two and Exxon had one comparable citation.”  Exxon, the oil company most critical of global warming hysteria, had the best safety record.  BP’s record is so bad that it has been described as a “serial environmental criminal.”

While other companies have invested money in safety, BP has “invested heavily” in an environmentally-conscious advertising campaign that brands the company as “Beyond Petroleum,” and until recently spent money lobbying for the global-warming bill backed by the Obama administration, a bill full of  corporate welfare dressed up as “green energy.”   The company’s advertising campaign successfully duped consumers into viewing it as “the greenest oil company.”

Earlier, the Obama administration ignored the pleas of Louisiana’s governor to allow Louisiana to build barrier islands to contain the damage from the oil spill, insisting that any such islands should be built, if at all, only after a slow and complicated regulatory process that could take years.

Democratic strategist James Carville, who was raised in Louisiana, called Obama’s handling of the oil spill “lackadaisical” and “unbelievable” in its “stupidity.”

The Obama administration granted BP a waiver from environmental regulations in April 2009.  Obama received lots of campaign contributions from BP.  ABC News reports that the “top recipient of BP-related donations during the 2008 cycle was President Barack Obama himself, who collected $71,000.”

The $800 billion stimulus package is using taxpayer subsidies to replace U.S. jobs with foreign green jobs. Its regulations are destroying jobs in America’s export sector.

The global warming legislation backed by President Obama would also drive jobs overseas, since it would impose a costly cap-and-trade carbon rationing scheme on American industry, while leaving foreign plants operated by multinational corporations unregulated.  That’s one reason why many big companies with plants overseas are lobbying for the global-warming legislation, which would give them an advantage over competitors that make their products largely in America.

Although Obama and other backers of this “cap-and-trade” concept claim it will cut greenhouse gas emissions, it may perversely increase them by driving industry overseas to places with fewer environmental regulations, resulting in dirtier air, and damage to forests and water supplies.   It would enrich politically-connected corporations, and result in massive destruction of the world’s forests.

By expanding ethanol subsidies and mandates, it would cause enormous “damage to water supplies, soil health and air quality.” Ethanol subsidies have already resulted in forests being destroyed in the Third World.

The Washington Examiner earlier explained how the global warming bill would cause deforestation by expanding ethanol subsidies, and thus increase greenhouse gas emissions in the long run.  Obama’s so-called “cap-and-trade” bill is full of pay-offs for special interests.

On June 10, the Senate will debate and vote on S.J.Res.26, a resolution of disapproval sponsored by Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska to stop EPA from ‘enacting’ controversial global warming policies through the regulatory back door.

S.J.Res.26 would overturn the legal force and effect of EPA’s endangerment finding, a December 2009 rulemaking in which the agency concluded that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare. The endangerment finding is both trigger and precedent for sweeping policy changes Congress never approved. America could end up with a bundle of greenhouse gas regulations more costly and intrusive than any climate bill or treaty the Senate has declined to pass or ratify, yet without the people’s representatives ever voting on it.

Of course, not everbody sees it that way. In a recent letter urging Senators to vote against the Murkowski resolution, former EPA Administrator Russell Train contends that Congress did intend for EPA to regulate greenhouse gases through the Clean Air Act. His argument may be summarized as follows: 

1. Congress enacted the Clean Air Act.
2. The Act requires EPA to regulate air pollutants which in its judgment endanger public health or welfare.
3. EPA has determined that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare.
4. Therefore, Congress intended for EPA to regulate greenhouse gases.
5. Hence, S.J.Res.26 would “roll back” and “undermine” the Clean Air Act.

A moment’s reflection, however, reveals that this argument is an empty suit. All it proves is that EPA has jumped through the requisite procedural hoops, which nobody disputes. It in no way demonstrate that Congress intended for EPA to regulate greenhouse gases.

As I explain today on MasterResource.Org, the free-market energy blog, Train ignores the obvious:

1. Congress did not design the Clean Air Act to be a framework for climate policy.
2. Congress has never voted for the Act to be used as such a framework.
3. Applying the Clean Air Act to carbon dioxide leads to “absurd results” — regulatory consequences that conflict with and undermine congressional intent, as even EPA admits.
4. Unless stopped, EPA will be in a position to determine the stringency of fuel economy standards for the auto industry, set climate policy for the nation, and even ‘amend’ portions of the Clean Air Act (to avoid some, but not all, absurd results). These are powers Congress never delegated to EPA.

The importance of the vote on S.J.Res.26 is hard to exaggerate. Nothing less than the integrity of our constitutional system of separated powers and democratic accountability hangs in the balance.