House GOP readies bill to prohibit EPA from regulating carbon emissions

Acting on a vow to fight the Obama administration on climate issues, Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, unveiled draft legislation Wednesday to try to strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its power to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

Sen. James M. Inhofe (Okla.), ranking Republican on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), chairman of the subcommittee on energy and power, joined Upton in issuing what they called the Energy Tax Prevention Act.

In a statement, the congressmen said the legislation's intent is to show that the Clean Air Act was not meant to address climate change, stop the EPA "from imposing a backdoor cap-and-trade tax" on industries identified as polluters, and protect American jobs.

"We firmly believe federal bureaucrats should not be unilaterally setting national climate change policy," the statement said.

The EPA issued a finding in late 2009 that said greenhouse gas emissions linked to global warming endanger the public's health and welfare. Last month, the agency told industrial facilities such as power plants, oil refineries and paper mills that require permits to emit sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide to also account for greenhouse gas emissions if they expand or add construction that significantly increases greenhouse gas pollution.

Republicans, many of whom doubt climate-change science, say the regulations hurt the ability of U.S. manufacturers to compete against companies in countries with relaxed standards.

The EPA has its foot "squarely on the neck of business," Upton has said. Republicans say the Obama administration is trying to use tougher EPA regulations on energy to overcome the president's failure to pass climate-change legislation.

Read More: House GOP readies bill to prohibit EPA from regulating carbon emissions

10:10 Climate Change Campaign creator's actions proves the campaign's uselessness (Video)

Franny "Super Carbon" Armstrong

Franny Armstrong, the creator of the self described climate change "blockbuster" movie,  admits that the only way she could make it was to increase her carbon footprint 10 fold. Begin watching the video below at around 1:10.

Fran has been quoted as saying, "If you're not fighting climate change or improving the world, you're wasting your life."

Funny that the only way she could "improve" the world was by burning enough carbon to fuel a small village.

The audacity of these people is stunning. They can rationalize almost any behaviour as long as it gets them to their end result. Does it make sense to increase your carbon footprint by 10 fold, in order create a movie to encourage people to reduce their carbon footprint?

Makes no sense. Unless your making money.

This idiot logic is so outside the realm of sanity that it might need a referral for medication.

Drill Here? Study, plan, authorize . . . maybe.

The New York Times led with a story this morning that the Prez would open offshore areas to oil drilling. Which is odd since it was barely a year ago that he rescinded the drilling permits ordered by his predecessor. But this is different, because now he may be able to entice some "Drill Baby Drill" Republicans into support of a Cap and Trade type proposal with offshore drilling playing the part of the carrot.

Obama to Open Offshore Areas to Oil Drilling for First Time

The Obama administration is proposing to open vast expanses of water along the Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the north coast of Alaska to oil and natural gas drilling, much of it for the first time, officials said Tuesday.

The proposal---a compromise that will please oil companies and domestic drilling advocates but anger some residents of affected states and many environmental organizations — would end a longstanding moratorium on oil exploration along the East Coast from the northern tip of Delaware to the central coast of Florida, covering 167 million acres of ocean.

Under the plan, the coastline from New Jersey northward would remain closed to all oil and gas activity. So would the Pacific Coast, from Mexico to the Canadian border.

The environmentally sensitive Bristol Bay in southwestern Alaska would be protected and no drilling would be allowed under the plan, officials said. But large tracts in the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea in the Arctic Ocean north of Alaska — nearly 130 million acres — would be eligible for exploration and drilling after extensive studies.

But the devil is always in the details. The report says that:

"the administration plans to adopt some drilling proposals floated by President George W. Bush."

Note: that the administration plans to adopt some not all. The report goes on to say that officials say:

"The first lease sale off the coast of Virginia could occur as early as next year in a triangular tract 50 miles off the coast."

Or it could occur as let as never. Why? Because the Interior Department

"will spend several years conducting geologic and environmental studies along the rest of the southern and central Atlantic Seaboard. If a tract is deemed suitable for development, it is listed for sale in a competitive bidding system. The next lease sales — if any are authorized by the Interior Department — would not be held before 2012."

Don't know about you, but I find that to be a lot of what if's, kinda sorta's, and maybe's in return for a vote for another large tax increase in the form of Cap and Trade.


As Moe Lane puts it:

"the White House is implying the promise of jam tomorrow - in reality, it’s just a study to revisit the denial of jam yesterday - in exchange for jam today. Only the jam today is actually a swarm of angry wasps. Try again, Mr. President. Start with rescinding your interference with the Bush drilling permits, and expect to give up more. A lot more: your opponents are not interested in indulging the Greenies’ quaint, somewhat primitive religious sensibilities."

In other words, an operator’s ability to drill and explore a lease is subject to his ability to secure the requisite approval from the various government agencies that issue permits for that activity. So, theoretically, the Feds could issue a lease, but if one of the regulatory bodies refuses to issue a permit, there’s no drilling.

And, guess what? It already happened last month.

Montana oil leases suspended

BILLINGS – A federal judge has approved a first-of-its-kind settlement requiring the government to suspend 38,000 acres of oil and gas leases in Montana so it can gauge how oil field activities contribute to climate change. …


Under the deal approved Thursday by U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy in Missoula, the Bureau of Land Management will suspend the 61 leases in Montana within 90 days. They will have to go through a new round of environmental reviews before the suspensions can be lifted.


A parallel lawsuit challenging 70,000 acres of federal lands leased in New Mexico remains pending.

Put simply this is a scheme to regain support for a Cap and Trade proposal that as of this moment appears to be dead. To fall for anything this administration proposes at this point is a mistake. Just Say No to everything until November. Then begin the conversation anew.

‘Cap and Trade’ Loses Its Standing as Energy Policy of Choice

Less than a year ago, cap and trade was the policy of choice for tackling climate change.
Environmental groups and their foes in industry joined hands to embrace the approach, a market-driven system that sets a ceiling on global warming pollution while allowing companies to trade permits to meet it. President Obama praised it by name in his first budget, and the authors of the House climate and energy bill passed last June largely built their measure around it.

Today, the concept is in wide disrepute, with opponents effectively branding it “cap and tax,” and Tea Party followers using it as a symbol of much of what they say is wrong with Washington.

Mr. Obama dropped all mention of cap and trade from his current budget. And the sponsors of a Senate climate bill likely to be introduced in April, now that Congress is moving past health care, dare not speak its name.

"I don’t know what ‘cap and trade’ means,” Senator John F. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, said last fall in introducing his original climate change plan.

Mr. Kerry’s partner in promoting global warming legislation, Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, pronounced economywide cap and trade dead last month and has since been working with Mr. Kerry to try to patch together a bill that satisfies the diverse economic, regional and ideological interests of the Senate.
That plan, still being written, will include a cap on greenhouse gas emissions only for utilities, at least at first, with other industries phased in perhaps years later. It is also said to include a modest tax on gasoline, diesel fuel and aviation fuel, accompanied by new incentives for oil and gas drilling, nuclear power plant construction, carbon capture and storage, and renewable energy sources like wind and solar.

Why did cap and trade die? The short answer is that it was done in by the weak economy, the Wall Street meltdown, determined industry opposition and its own complexity.

The New York Times