Human Events Blog

Bipartisan Group of Over 200 Reps Urge White House to End Job-Killing Climate Regulations

A group of over 200 US representatives, including 14 democrats, sent a letter to the Obama White House this week urging the administration to end their job-killing junk science regulations.

Stop the job killing policies.

The Hill reported:

More than 200 House Republicans and about a dozen conservative Democrats called on the White House Thursday to kill pending climate regulations, arguing they will impose huge costs on consumers. “Affordable, reliable electricity is critical to keeping growing jobs in the United States and such a standard will likely drive up energy prices and threaten domestic jobs,” the 223 lawmakers, including 14 Democrats, wrote in a letter to White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) acting director Jeffrey Zients.

The letter marks the latest affront on the Environmental Protection Agency’s pending rules limiting greenhouse gas emissions from new and modified power plants that burn fossil fuels. Republicans and some centrist Democrats in the House and Senate have been working for months to scuttle the regulations. But EPA and other backers of the rules say they will offer huge public health benefits and help to tackle climate change at a minimal cost.

The rules, which EPA is issuing under a settlement with environmentalists and several states, have been delayed repeatedly. “Our timeline has been for the end of January. We think we are close to that timeline,” Gina McCarthy, EPA’s top air quality official, said Jan. 19.

Sign Up
  • Hominid

    At last.  Could some sanity be coming into the Congress?

  • Guest

    The EPA is a rogue agency serving under a rogue president.Time for states and industry to disregard their edicts.

  • globalcrap

    Time for them to take back the American White House,and have this O Bogus regim of socialist traitors imprisoned. If this regime is not stopped ,there will be more crime in the streetss  with these high gas prices,food prices .

  • Niniane

    Public health benefits? No one will be able to afford heating their homes and will die quickly of pneumonia. We won’t be able to cook food in the non-working fridge and will starve to death. And no one will be able to afford the power for their Chevy Volt so we won’t be able to make it to the soup kitchen or the doctor — any why bother as the soup kitchen won’t be able to cook and the doctor’s diagnosing instruments won’t work. On a lighter note, we will all be walking into walls after sunset and only get bruises which few will be able to see after dark.

    Good for these House members, but Obama will find a way to circumvent whatever they want as he ridicules them on the campaign trail. Obama has got to go so we can get our country back.

  • Mike_in_Wasilla

    I have a better idea,  let’s all just ignore the EPA rules.     And no, they will not come after everybody.

  • jagscl

    Obama has time after time ignored Congress and the people. He shoved Obamacare down our throats using bribes, lies and corruption.  The NLRB without a shred of authority prevented Boeing from opening it new plant in Carolina, he violates First Amendment rights of free exercise or religion, destroys energy production by shutting accesss to US lands and now, he is out to destroy the  coal power industry through a rogue agency that must be abolished, not modified, not tinkered with, but abolished.

  • planeboy

    Not gonna happen…

  • redwolf6911

     You are correct.  The EPA is trying to destroy the energy business in several states mostly those that are controlled by Republicans.  The House should pull all funding for the EPA as soon as possible.

  • BuckeyePhysicist

    The entire goal of “climate legislation” is to kill job growth, increase unemployment, and drive as many people into the arms of the nanny state as possible.

  • richardmillerz

    If you could not find a job for a long time it is time to change your career guys.. The time is now.  Be on your way to earning an accredited degree. Check out High Speed Universities and they sure find suitable career based on your interests.

  • Hominid

    Your agency is charged to ‘protect the environment.’  Where does that charge necessarily lead you?  What is the end-point if your goal is simply to ‘protect of the environment’?  To execute your charge, you must ask yourself the question, ‘Does human activity X harm the environment?’  The answer to that question will ALWAYS BE ‘YES.’  Thus, the logical end-point of ‘environmental protection’ must be the suspension of ALL human activity.

    Now, you say, ‘Come on, Homi, be reasonable – just protect the environment from SEVERE harm.’  Demanding reasonableness and good judgment is fair enough.  So, now the question becomes, ‘Does human activity X SEVERELY harm the environment?’  ‘Does activity X harm the environment to such a degree, that it should be constrained or banned?’.  It’s sort of like asking if man-made CO2 severely harms the environment.  The answer is, ‘Any human activity can be demonstrated to do SOME harm to SOME aspect of the environment and enough of it will do severe harm.’  It’s a judgment call.  If my agency is predisposed to ‘protect the environment,’ it will tend to rule against the human activity.  See what I mean?  Extremism is likely to creep in.

    Even if reasonable, the EPA will always at least DRIFT in the direction of RESTRICTING human activity.  It has to.  As time goes by, the restrictions pile up – more and more human activities become restricted, marching inexorably to the end-point of the suspension of all human activity.  Agencies will pursue their charge ultimately to it’s end-point.  For example, Congress will always make more laws simply because their charge is to make laws.  What else are they gunna do?

    Someone – hopefully sane – has to step in and stop the drift; to say there has to be a bargain struck between environmental harm and human activity.  

    The brakes have to be applied by an independent DRIVER – from outside of the agency in order to prevent the drift into unreasonableness, into insanity.  The driver must represent the collective, never selective, interests and knowledge of society.  In America, that’s Congress.  We the people are stuck – we have to count on Congress to do the right thing.

  • Hominid

    BTW, if you think about it for a while, this compelling argument applies to practically everything the gov does and everything in the political sphere.

    How often have you heard the mistaken declaration, ‘If just one person is saved, the measure is worth it!’

    Doesn’t your insurance salesman tell you you can never have enough coverage?  Isn’t your doctor constantly warning you of health risks?  The Coast Guard will tell you it’s folly to go on the water without a life jacket.  We can’t ride a bike without a helmet, drive without a seat belt, or sell lemonade without a health inspection certificate.  You can’t smoke because some people are more susceptible to the toxic effects of your smoke.

    We have to come to our senses, use good judgment, and say ENOUGH!  Enough laws!  Enough regulations!  Life is filled with risks and trade-offs.  We can’t protect everyone.  We can’t save everyone.  We can’t have perfection or anything even resembling it.  It’s self-delusion to think otherwise.

  • Dan the TEA Man

     It surely has NOTHING to do with protecting the environment. Indeed, ANY time a government official uses the word “protect”, be VERY afraid! “Protect” is a code word for taking away rights.

  • Dan the TEA Man

     As I replied to another poster, “protect” is a libby code for taking away your rights. If the EPA had its way, we’d all be wearing CO2-to-O2 conversion masks to “protect” the environment from gore-bull warming.

  • Hominid

    Sadly, Dan, it’s not just libs who are into this – there are plenty of right-wing BUSY-BODIES as well who want to tell everyone how to live and see to it that they do.

  • confedgal

    There is a lot the house should do but won’t because of the lack of … uh … gonads.

  • confedgal

    The irony of the liberal position that we have to limit CO2 in order to protect the environment is that a crucial part of the environment cannot survive without it.