The EPA and CO2

Today the EPA proposed to find that certain greenhouse gases, including CO2, pose a threat to human health. The statement can be found here, http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/Determination.pdf.

Here are the two findings:

 Endangerment Finding: The Administrator is proposing to find that the current and projected concentrations of the mix of six key greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)—in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.

 Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator is further proposing to find that the combined emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O, and HFCs from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines contribute to the atmospheric concentrations of these key greenhouse gases and hence to the threat of climate change. If the EPA moves forward with this, they could end up regulating CO2 and these other gases under the Clean Air Act.

I have attached the comments the ERLC submitted to the EPA during the pre-comment period so you can see some of what has us concerned about this. Essentially, just about everybody will pay a fee to emit greenhouse gases if the EPA does this.

Of special interest is this statement toward the end of their press release: "Before taking any steps to reduce greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, EPA would conduct an appropriate process and consider stakeholder input. Notwithstanding this required regulatory process, both President Obama and Administrator Jackson have repeatedly indicated their preference for comprehensive legislation to address this issue and create the framework for a clean energy economy," http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/0EF7DF675805295D8525759B00566924.
You should consider this as a threat to act and impose really dreadful limitations on CO2 emissions if Congress doesn't pass global warming legislation.

So now we come to what this is really all about. It's about the President's interest in securing a carbon tax to fund his budget initiatives. We will be told that a cap and trade plan is better than the EPA imposing its heavy hand on all of us through the Clean Air Act. This helps create pressure to look the other way as the President's budget moves through Congress. If that still doesn't get the votes needed in the Senate, then it is likely the whole package will be run through the Senate under the reconciliation process. Under this process, they just need 50 senate votes, plus Biden, to pass the budget.

Here are some comments from others:

Phil Kerpen: "Note below that Dan Clifton fears, as I do, that cap-and-trade in the budget means it will be moved under budget reconciliation, meaning it needs only 50 votes, not 60. That is going to make our job enormously more difficult. It also means the program will have to sunset after the budget window, which will most likely be 5 years. So they will have to explain the value of a 5-year program to combat a 100+ year problem. It also lays bare the fact that this is all about raising revenue, that is, taxes, since that's the only reason it can be made part of the budget."

Dan Clifton: "We think the biggest policy takeaway is inclusion of cap & trade in the budget rather than as a stand alone measure as we noted in yesterday's "Policy Outlook." Should Congress place the provision under reconciliation protection (Washington speak for filibuster proof in the Senate due to budget rules), legislative approval may just require 51 votes (including Vice-President Biden) and not the traditional 60 votes.This is the procedure for how President Clinton passed his tax increase and President Bush passed his tax cuts. Cap & trade is a revenue raiser and Obama is seeking to use this money to reduce the deficit. Should reconciliation protection be given to the measure, we would raise our probability of passage. Should the provision not receive the protection we think the legislation is unlikely to garner the needed 60 votes for passage. The tax increases are not large enough for Obama to close the $2tn budget deficit while making good on his major promises in health,energy, and education."

Inclusion of the global warming measure in the budget provides the Administration with two wins: 1. They get the revenue from selling emissions credits to businesses, essentially a new tax on every business in the country; and 2. They get to force the US to adopt a system to curb greenhouse gases.

Continuing on the energy front, here's an article by Kimberley Strassel in the April 17 Wall Street Journal. She discusses Congress' efforts to encourage the use of alternative fuels. I think you'll find it informative, and hilarious if it weren't all so distressing, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123993344387627879.html.

Finally, I think these two articles on energy in the April 20 Newsweek sum up very well the two opposing views on our energy future. Gingrich's article, http://www.newsweek.com/id/192480, is strongly argued with very substantive proposals. Chu's article, http://www.newsweek.com/id/192481, is weak on viable immediate solutions.

The most disturbing part of Chu's article is his call for US farms to produce more alternative energy. Such an approach will drive up the cost of food as valuable farm land is diverted to growing crops for the more lucrative fuel market instead of food. We continue to press the case for common sense.

Barrett