No agency is in GOP crosshairs quite like it. Under siege on many fronts, the Environmental Protection Agency is in for a long haul and destined to be a hot button in the presidential campaign.
On Monday the House Energy and Commerce committee began work on blocking EPA regulation of greenhouse gas, a proposal that could also gain traction in the Senate because many Democrats, such as Nebraska's Ben Nelson, are expected to back it. The current 3-week extension of stop-gap funding to avoid a federal shutdown includes EPA funding cuts.
Read More
Showing posts with label Environmental Protection Agency. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Environmental Protection Agency. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Thursday, February 3, 2011
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
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
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Next on Obama's hit list: small contractors
On April 22 (Earth Day!) new EPA regulations go into effect that could take down many a small contractor.
It’s all about the rules on lead paint removal, which heretofore had been enforced only for work on homes that were old enough to have lead paint and in which small children or pregnant women (the populations at risk) resided. But that’s not good enough for our nanny state; oh no. Now the rules will apply to work done on any home built before 1978, eliminating the previous sensible escape hatch whereby a homeowner could opt out of the regulations if there were no at-risk individuals living in the house.
You might ask why it is that a homeowner contemplating a remodeling job should be deprived of the ability to refuse to pay for costly lead protection procedures that are not needed. Well, here’s your answer: “this option (the opt-out) was ripe for abuse.” In other words, the government can’t trust people to do what’s in the best interest of their own children or pregnancies, and so we all must suffer.
And suffer we will, especially the contractors. To be in compliance by April 22 would mean that every contractor contemplating a job that would disturb more than six square feet of a home’s area (and this includes not just carpentry but plumbing, window installation, and heating and AC installation) would need to have completed a one-day course in the matter, necessitating taking a day off and spending about two hundred dollars. But since there are nowhere near enough certified teachers, therefore the vast majority of America’s contractors could not possibly comply by April 22 even if they wanted to.
But that’s relatively minor compared to larger problems connected with the new rules, such as the fact that they will increase the costs of renovation for both contractor and homeowner just at a time when the industry and the consumer can least handle it.
You might ask why it is that a homeowner contemplating a remodeling job should be deprived of the ability to refuse to pay for costly lead protection procedures that are not needed. Well, here’s your answer: “this option (the opt-out) was ripe for abuse.” In other words, the government can’t trust people to do what’s in the best interest of their own children or pregnancies, and so we all must suffer.
And suffer we will, especially the contractors. To be in compliance by April 22 would mean that every contractor contemplating a job that would disturb more than six square feet of a home’s area (and this includes not just carpentry but plumbing, window installation, and heating and AC installation) would need to have completed a one-day course in the matter, necessitating taking a day off and spending about two hundred dollars. But since there are nowhere near enough certified teachers, therefore the vast majority of America’s contractors could not possibly comply by April 22 even if they wanted to.
But that’s relatively minor compared to larger problems connected with the new rules, such as the fact that they will increase the costs of renovation for both contractor and homeowner just at a time when the industry and the consumer can least handle it.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
The EPA, Keeping Chemicals Secret Since 1976
The Environmental Working Group, always on its green toes, has released a report showing that nearly 20 percent of the 84,000 chemicals used commercially in the U.S. have been kept secret from the public. Both the names and physical properties of these chemicals are kept confidential even from state officials and within the EPA because an exemption was written into the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act to protect industry trade secrets: public disclosure of information about a chemical is not required if it would affect a company's bottom line. It's a loophole the Environmental Working Group calls, "a regulatory black hole, a place where information goes in - but much never comes out."
The number of secret chemicals now totals about 17,000, many of which are found in everyday consumer products—apparel, plastic products, furniture. At least 10 of the 151 confidential high-volume chemicals (more than 1 million tons produced a year) are used in products targeted specifically to children.
Industry representatives defend the practice of secrecy, saying the spread of information jeopardizes competition within the industry, and it is true that many of the chemicals are harmless. But as the Washington Post notes, 65 "substantial risk" reports were filed with the EPA in March, and over half of those involved secret chemicals.
Planet Green
The number of secret chemicals now totals about 17,000, many of which are found in everyday consumer products—apparel, plastic products, furniture. At least 10 of the 151 confidential high-volume chemicals (more than 1 million tons produced a year) are used in products targeted specifically to children.
Industry representatives defend the practice of secrecy, saying the spread of information jeopardizes competition within the industry, and it is true that many of the chemicals are harmless. But as the Washington Post notes, 65 "substantial risk" reports were filed with the EPA in March, and over half of those involved secret chemicals.
Planet Green
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)