Rep. John Sullivan (R-Okla.) clarified that today’s hearing is not on climate science but on whether Congress or EPA makes climate policy and the cost of EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations. Right!
Somebody though needs to ask Administrator Jackson questions that flesh out Sullivan’s point:
- When will EPA respond to the environmental groups’ December 2009 petition to establish national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for CO2 set at 350 parts per million (ppm)?
- The Waxman-Markey “stabilization target” was 450 ppm by 2050. Yet the Clean Air Act requires states to attain NAAQS within 5-10 years. Wouldn’t a CO2 NAAQS thus require far more draconian cuts in fossil energy use than would Waxman-Markey, a bill Congress considered too costly to pass?
- Would EPA then have to issue a new “Tailoring Rule” re-imagining the Act’s 5-10 NAAQS timeline to mean, say, 50-100 years?
- What does it tell us about EPA and the Court’s reading of the Clean Air Act that EPA has to amend – or in bureaucrat-speak, “tailor” – the law in order to avoid “absurd results,” notably, an administrative quagmire that would both paralyze environmental enforcement and freeze economic development?
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
CEI.org
So tell me then, what's the tax rate on baby's breath going to be? And about those cows… Hmmm??
This cabal of neo Malthusians, misanthropes, and watermellons has got to be stopped – NOW. There is so much science against the human source of major CO2 increases that this farce has gone far enough.
Ask EPA what results they expect ..about 4-5 years ago the predicted that they could only change the temperature 0.1 degrees over one hundred years..that reveals that the only thing on their agenda is to kill fossil fuels..they hate big industry
Comments on this entry are closed.