E.P.A. Moves to Curtail Greenhouse Gas Emissions

John M. Broder writes in "E.P.A. Moves to Curtail Greenhouse Gas Emissions, New York Times, September 30, 2009, that "Unwilling to wait for Congress to act, the Obama administration announced on Wednesday that it was moving forward on new rules to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from hundreds of power plants and large industrial facilities."

What he failed to write was that this is President Obama's opening salvo to force Congress to act to pass a Cap & Trade bill that will impose a tremendous burden on the struggling American economy and further weaken the U.S. labor market for employed and unemployed alike.

Broder continues, "President Obama has said that he prefers a comprehensive legislative approach to regulating emissions and stemming global warming, not a piecemeal application of rules, and that he is deeply committed to passage of a climate bill this year."

Sure he does, because EPA rulings are certain to be tied up in the courts for years with very uncertain outcomes. EPA's shaky evidence to support it's determination that CO2 is a pollutant is sure to come under additional scrutiny and perhaps be overturned altogether. So the President prefers Congressional action that would make Cap & Trade the law of the land.

Broder also reports, "The move was timed to come on the same day that two Democratic senators, John F. Kerry of Massachusetts and Barbara Boxer of California, introduced global warming and energy legislation that faces a steep climb to passage this year." A coincidence. I think not.

Broder also reports on the opposition, "Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma and an opponent of global warming legislation, called the proposed rule “a back door energy tax” that circumvents Congress and violates the terms of the Clean Air Act.

Scott Segal, a utility lobbyist with the law firm Bracewell & Giuliani in Washington, said the rule should not be used to rush Congress into passing a poorly drafted bill."

"Charles T. Drevna, president of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, said that the emission of greenhouse gases was a global problem and that it was pointless to regulate only some sources.

“This proposal incorrectly assumes that one industry’s greenhouse gas emissions are worse than another’s,” Mr. Drevna said. 'E.P.A. lacks the legal authority to categorically exempt sources that exceed the Clean Air Act’s major source threshold from permitting requirements, and this creates a troubling precedent for any agency actions in the future.' "

Why is the President taking another enormous political risk on top of his crap-shoot on health care? Supporters portray him as a true believer who only cares for America and its people. Opponents label him as an agenda driven dreamer who ignores public opinion and the advice of others. The impartial Congressional Budget office labels him as a big spender who is pushing this country deeper in to debt, risking a financial collapse.