EPA to Increase Tenfold

Pages: 1 2

The Environmental Agency is planning to double its budget to $21 billion and expand its workforce of 18,000 to 230,000 regulators over the next four years.

The Clean Air Act states that any stationary source that emits as little as 100 tons of pollutants per year must get permits from the EPA and state agencies. A typical restaurant or apartment house sends out 100 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2). Currently about 14,000 entities have to get permits. But by regulating CO2 through the Clean Air Act, the number of businesses requiring EPA permits will soar to more than 6 million.

This potential explosion of regulators all began with a Supreme Court decision in a landmark environmental case decided in April 2007. The court’s ruling was an historic turning point in the environment of fright over global warming. The environmentalists almost went gaga over the court ruling. In a 5-4 strange decision the court said that carbon dioxide—the air every human and animal exhales—is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act and that the EPA had the power to regulate CO2 emissions from vehicles. The case, Massachusetts vs. EPA, was a defeat for the Bush Administration.

A key question in the case was: Does EPA have the discretion not to regulate those emissions?

The Court remanded the case to EPA, requiring the agency to review the contention that it had discretion in regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. The Court found the current rationale for not regulating to be inadequate and required the agency to articulate a reasonable basis in order to avoid regulation.

During the Bush Administration, the EPA had argued that it had no authority to regulate so-called “tailpipe emissions” of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that supposedly contribute to global warming, because they are “non-point” emission sources. They are not fixed geographically, unlike coal-fired power plants that are “point” sources and closely regulated. Vehicles account for about 20 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, while power plants account for about 40 percent.

The case put three questions before the court:

Do states have the right to sue the EPA to challenge its decision?

Does the Clean Air Act give EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases?

Does EPA have the discretion not to regulate those emissions?

Pages: 1 2

  • Chezwick_mac

    Well, this is bound to make our goods more competitive around the world.

  • Gunter Chain

    This is grossly inaccurate information that came from the Daily Caller yet it still seems to be spreading thanks to people without any common sense or the willingness to check facts.

    Reality check here: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64582.h

    • mrbean

      Your reference says: The Environmental Protection Agency is looking to spend $21 billion per year to hire an additional 230,000 people to enforce greenhouse gas regulations. Ahhhh…230,000 new civil servants is a significant start that once estalished can only grow even more significantly!

      • Gunter Chain

        LOL! You apparently didn't fully read or comprehend the article I posted. EPA was handed legislation and court decisions, but chose to regulate more prudently, using a tailoring approach which COMPLETELY AVOIDS needing 230,000 more regulators. See here:
        http://mediamatters.org/research/201109270014

        This is again a perfect example, typical of the FUD machine running amok with slipshod reporting by media and a complete lack of common sense or fact checking.

  • Zinnia2

    oh yes, more regulations and total socialist ideological control, gotta keep the lawyers ear-deep in lawsuits to fund big gov't… all the more reason to repeal, defund and disband epa… bye bye…

  • LindaRivera

    Every day our country is being destroyed.

    An inferior health care plan that no one wants and CANNOT afford to pay. The threat to jail and/or fine those who don't purchase the government enforced plan.

    Massive spending as if there is no tomorrow. Fighting wars we have no money for. Massive borrowing. The Massive giving away of Billions of dollars every year to other countries, including the oil-wealthy Middle East, Hamas-controlled Gaza and the Palestinian Authority organization who fill their war chests, build mansions and laugh all the way to the bank with free infidel money. Whilst in America, homeless shelters are filled to capacity; tent cities have sprung up all over the U.S. filled with desperate, jobless, homeless, NEGLECTED Americans.

    Massive debt. The massive printing of paper money out of thin air to DELIBERATELY create out-of-control inflation. There is no question that the total DESTRUCTION of America's economy is planned. The results will be horrifying. In the once wealthy and great nation of America, millions of Americans will become destitute, hungry and homeless with no money or resources to help them.

    • Gunter Chain

      Nobody could afford the healthcare plan we had even prior to Obamacare, and the individual mandate requiring people to buy insurance actually came from the Republicans, it was a central plank in their 1992 healthcare reform agenda.

      The debt, the wars, the economic collapse, also thanks to the Bush administration. More of the same is definitely not the answer.

  • LindaRivera

    Organic, non-gmo avocado, fruit and nut trees and berries must be planted in all of our nation’s cities’ and towns’ parks to help the many millions of Americans who will soon be in a desperate struggle to survive.

    Watch it. And weep for our great nation and people:

    FALL Of The Republic – The Presidency Of Barack H Obama – The Full Movie HQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8LPNRI_6T8&fe

  • pyeatte

    Fortunately the Congress cannot be Forced to allocate the money for all those useless bureaucrats, and with a new administration likely, the EPA may want to concentrate on merely surviving.

    • Gunter Chain

      No, fortunately this article is a complete crock and a sham, there never was going to be an additional 230,000 "bureaucrats". The rest of the story is here: http://mediamatters.org/research/201109270014

      • pyeatte

        Anything that comes out of the left-wing site of mediamatters is highly suspect to say the least. No matter what, Congress will never allow something so stupid to pass.

        • Gunter Chain

          Mediamatters? Ah yes, attack the messenger when you can't deal with the facts. The whole reason this is coming up is because Congress ALREADY PASSED the law requiring EPA to act on this, the only thing left is how EPA implements it – and as has already been explained to you several times (and amazingly, it still hasn't sunk in) the way that EPA has chosen to implement it ELIMINATES the need for hiring the 230,000 new employees or to spend $21 billion. EPA is not the problem, they are just doing what they are required to by Congress and by the courts. This dysfunctional Congress is far bigger of a problem for our country, our economy, and our jobs than the EPA.

  • Red Baker

    We must disassemble big government.

    • Gunter Chain

      Naive. Deregulation, austerity programs, and disassembling government has never worked in any nation that has ever tried it.

      • pyeatte

        You are really a piece of work. Reducing the size of government means less regulation on the people which means more freedom. A perfect example is the monster called Obamacare.

        • Gunter Chain

          Reducing the size of government means losing the infrastructure that made us the great country we are. Ah, yes- wave the "freedom" banner, while presuming to dictate what I should or should not believe. Such hypocrisy. The fact is, in any genuinely meaningful way, you are probably no less free today than you were the day you were born. We already deregulated quite a bit under Bush, and all that did is allow the banking sector to run amok and crash our economy – and it did NOT create any jobs. Similarly, we reduced taxes and that also did not create any jobs. Those are stale old, failed policies that are beyond the point of valid returns. Worse yet, continued deregulation means we become the wild west. We go to leaving everything up to the robber barons. We hurry that much quicker toward being a third world nation. Like I said, your ideas have already been tried, and are a proven failure.

          • Oleg

            So what would you suggest, by your logic North Korea should be the happiest and most prosperous society on Earth? So cutting taxes doesn't create jobs, hmm, unemployment was as low as 4.5% in the Bush era as opposed to a low of 8.9 % under Obama. Right now the Canadian unemployment rate is at 7.5% while the U.S rate is at 9.1%, on the other hand the unemployment rate in much of Europe is in the double digits, the tax rates and government involvement in the economy is highest where?
            As for the mortgage and banking meltdown the causes have been explored and very well documented. Have government agencies encourage banks, and financial institutions (through threats or other means) to issue lots of loans to high risk applicants who have no income, no job, and no assets. Offer to backstop those mortgages, through pseudo private government companies, turning the mortgage market and banking system into a social program. Create an artificial and unsustainable real estate bubble that drives up the cost of housing well above what people can afford, and then wait. Do Fanny Mae, and Freddy Mac ring a bell?

          • Gunter Chain

            Oleg, unemployment went up over 8.2% under Bush's watch and continued to soar over 9% even with the Bush tax cuts still in place. Obviously the tax cut didn't work. As for the mortgage and banking meltdown, it's also been well documented that a huge number of failed loans were not under the purview of CRA, and had nothing to do with Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and all of the other stuff being circulated out there. The government did not force banks to make a lot of the bad loans that were made, Fannie and Freddie are small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. The government did not force banks into the Ponzi scheme of derivatives, the government did not make them bet on failure with credit default swaps, and so on. And in fact, it was Phil Gramm, who was John McCain's chief economic advisor who was primary person leading the charge for undoing Glass Steagall, which was put in place after the big crash of 1929 to prevent exactly what happened. And guess who he works for now? One of the big banks – UBS. Put 2 and 2 together.

  • Oleg

    If they truly wish to expand the payroll at the EPA cap the EPA budget at today's levels and let them try. When you figure that it costs over $100,000 to hire a body just to warm a chair, that's at least $23,000,000,000. One idea that they could use to put a leash on the EPA is to ban EPA bankrolling of outside environmental activist groups that in turn sue the government. In short bring an end to the EPA protection racket. While they are at it introduce some tort reform at the federal level to reduce the number of class action lawsuits. Better yet the next congress, preferably with a new White House, should amend the clean air act to only include real polutants, not co2, not water vapor, and not dust from farmers fields.