Dec
Environmental Blackmail
Manhattan Institute fellow Max Shultz nails the rational for the EPA ruling CO2 a pollutant. Here’s a taste; read the whole thing:
Typically, when a law is passed or a regulation proposed, its champions believe that the action will be beneficial to society. But that’s not the case when it comes to steps that the Obama administration took last week, when Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson issued an “endangerment” finding that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide are harmful pollutants and therefore subject to EPA regulation under the Clean Air Act. Jackson issued the finding largely because the Obama team believes—or at least thinks that Congress believes—that EPA regulation of CO2 would be devastating to the economy.
The endangerment finding was designed to strike fear into the hearts of those worried about the economic harm of severe government action. The aim is to terrify industry and move public opinion to such a degree that Congress feels compelled to pass cap-and-trade legislation—no matter how economically harmful it would be—in order to pre-empt a much worse, EPA-imposed regulatory regime. It is, essentially, environmental blackmail…
Full story: City-Journal.org | Discuss: here
Hasn’t Congress got the right to strike down such EPA regulation ?
Isn’t the EPA answerable to government ? to the people ? to the tax payer ? As a department, can’t the EPA be shut down or have their funding blocked by congress ?
Or are the fools on the hill, not listening ?
It seems to me, that the EPA are now acting in the interests of the UN and not the United States. As such, that means they are beholden to a bunch of socialist stooges and their hangers on.
If ever there was an enemy within, the EPA has to be it.
Aqua Fyre