Discussion: Lawmakers Rush To Scuttle Obama's New EPA Regulations

Discussion for article #223431

Lawmakers Rush To Scuttle Obama’s New EPA Regulations

Let me fix it:

Koch Suckers Furiously Plot Against Humanity’s Survival

10 Likes

Another potential flash point: The plan relies heavily on governors agreeing to develop plans to meet the federal standard. If Republican governors refuse to go along, as was the case with Obama’s expansion of Medicaid, the EPA can create its own plan for a state. But the specifics of how EPA could force a state to comply with that plan remain murky.

Oh for fuck’s sake. THIS HIS HOW IT WORKS FOR EVERY SINGLE OTHER POLLUTANT REGULATED BY EPA UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT!!!

The continual effort by the asshats to make people think this is some extraordinary groundbreaking edge of legality thing that’s happening is ridiculous. The only thing groundbreaking is the pollutant being regulated. The administrative and procedural machinery for doing the work of regulation are already in place, have been in place for half a century and CO2 will be regulated through the same machinery based on a regulatory model that’s been used for decades.

7 Likes

Perfect.

4 Likes
Scuttling the rules could be easier if Republicans take the Senate in November and then the White House in 2016.

Since the first one isn’t going to happen, that’s not going to be a problem, is it?

3 Likes

Ha, federal infrastructure can be halted or lost either way if the state chooses to opt out. I wonder if this is even crossing the minds of those who oppose the new standards kinda like those that voted to close the regional airports in the sequester and then realized that they use those airports and then voted to fund the airports to keep um open.

“The EPA projected that carrying out the plan will cost up to $8.8 billion annually in 2030,”

Which is a pittance - pocket change. Don’t we give Exxon-Mobil alone almost $10Billion a year in tax credits? We already spend that much every four years in election buying.

With Repugs gonna do everything they can think to kill them off all their older, COPD-inflicted, ex-smokers what are they planning to do for voters in 2016??

2 Likes

Absolutely the right rejoinder to these idiots. Nothing compared to the fossil fuel subsidies.

1 Like

But energy advocates sounded alarms, warning of economic drag. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., called the proposal “a dagger in the heart of the American middle class.”

Needs more hyperbole. These guys are always wrong. ALWAYS.

Good article at MoJo at just how wrong they have always been:

Well, how about history: There is a long tradition of cost overestimates for new environmental regulations. At the Huffington Post, Pacific Institute president Peter Gleick provides an extensive documentation, going back to the 1970s, arguing that such claims of huge costs not only have a long history, but that they are “always wrong.”

Among other things, Gleick links to a 2011 EPA study finding that the benefits of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments (which, of course, were attacked on grounds of supposed cost) “exceeded costs by a factor of more than 30 to one.” That’s not the only such study. In fact, as the World Resources Institute’s Ruth Greenspan Bell has noted, from 1999 to 2009, EPA water and clean-air regulations overall were clear cost-benefit winners. The total costs, according to a 2010 Office of Management and Budget report, were some $26-$29 billion, while the benefits were far greater: $82-$533 billion.

Dubiousness aside, the striking thing about all of these attacks is that they’re depressingly presentist, missing the big picture about the transformative effect that climate change is having on our world as it unleashes stunning impacts whose ultimate costs are sure to be mindboggling (like, say, 10 feet of sea level rise affecting every coastal city on the planet).

2 Likes

Alison Lundergan Grimes, McConnel’s soon to be defeated opponent, said, “When I’m in the U.S. Senate, I will fiercely oppose the President’s attack on Kentucky’s coal industry because protecting our jobs will be my number one priority.”

At least they have something in common.

1 Like

So what is more important? My grand children’s grand children or money made my people who pay me to make sure that the rich’s of all americans can profit while they give a rats ass if there children’s grand children have a world to live in.
I hate to tell you hating morons this 'but this world will end too. Why do you have to help it end sooner?

By coincidence, my wife and I were watching Neil deGrasse Tyson last night. He went into the history of climate change, much of which I knew. I recall, for ex, hearing of the greenhouse effect way back in jr high school decades ago.
Like so many we have children,grand children and great grand children and it’s just ineffably sad to see these churlish, nihilistic yahoos try to sabotage even these feeble and too little too late efforts to reverse the harm we’ve done to the planet.
We’re doomed. My adult kids know this. I wouldn’t have the heart to tell the grand kids even if I thought they would understand.

The majority of Americans, 70%, approve the EPA’s regulation coal firing electricity plants and are willing to pay higher electric bills.

Alison can not push back the tide and the tide is against coal. Next don’t count your chickens (grimes losing) before they hatch. Right now it is pretty much a toss-up.

Lawmakers Rush To Scuttle Obama’s New EPA Regulations

In a sane world, where the Koch brothers didn’t control the USA, this headline would read “Lawmakers Rush To Expand Funding for VA Hospitals And Clinics”.

So the coal states don’t have to do as much and the others are to decide what to do. This sounds like much to ado about nothing.