Barack Obama, Carbon Cycle, Clean Air Act, EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, Environmentalism, Photosynthesis, Statism
Soon to be declared a hazard by the EPA
If democrats succeed in nationalizing health care, Barack Obama’s leftward offensive will certainly have reached its high watermark. it is unlikely that members of Congress worried about re-election will risk defying public opinion a second time in order to enact Cap and Trade.
But Obama has a way around the legislative roadblock. He intends, it has already been disclosed, to have the Environmental Protection Agency adopt the perspective of the craziest environmentalist extremists out there and declare the emissions of all living animals, the gaseous elements of the carbon cycle of organic life, “a danger to the environment and the health of Americans.”
It would be a lot more dangerous, of course, if there were no carbon dioxide. Then, plants could not apply solar energy to it during photosynthesis to release oxygen for us to breathe and produce sugars and starches to serve as the nutritional basis of all vegetable and animal life.
Government prospers by regulating and punishing, by charging fees and leveling fines and by trading regulatory exemption for political support. You have to give the liberals credit for taking their penchant for statism to its logical limit. Once the fundamental processes underlying organic life are declared a menace, government has been given the ultimate blank check, a pretext to regulate, assess, and ban whatever form of productive activity it pleases. All the state has to do is identify a relationship between any intended victim’s economic activity and compounds fundamental to organic life, and its representatives can begin writing up the violation. If you’re living, you’re guilty.
Wonderful as this is for expanding the reach of political power, as Iain Murray observes, there is always a crazy enviro group out there ready to go to court and some ultraliberal judge ready to rule in its favor forcing govenment to act contrary to its own (and everyone else’s) interest.
The Clean Air Act is potentially a lot more dangerous to the United States than any toxic emissions.
The EPA is about to announce that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare, something that has in many ways been inevitable since the boneheaded SCOTUS ruling in Mass. vs EPA (which essentially found that the Clean Air Act was always intended to be Kyoto-on-steroids.) With thanks to my colleague Will Yeatman, here’s a brief summary of what this means, and why you should be appalled.
Under the Clean Air Act, an â€œendangermentâ€ finding means that the EPA will have to grant a waiver to those states (such as California) that want to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions from automobiles. The EPA has already agreed to do so. When â€œpollutantsâ€ that â€œendangerâ€ human health and welfare are regulated, the EPA must expand its regulatory program to include â€œstationaryâ€ sources. The EPA has already announced that it will do so.
This is where Obama wants to get off the â€œendangermentâ€ train, with the ability to regulate stationary and mobile sources (i.e., industry and cars) with almost complete discretion. These â€œendangermentâ€ powers give the president tremendous leverage in a number of complex negotiations.
For example, the Obama administration already has told Congress that it will regulate greenhouse gases unless lawmakers deliver a cap-and-trade bill to his desk. The â€œendangermentâ€ prerogatives also are the presidentâ€™s bargaining chip in Copenhagen, where he plans on scoring his first diplomatic victory since his election night.
The problem is that the president can’t get off the train where he wants. He simply canâ€™t stop what he has started. Under the statutory language of the Clean Air Act, the regulation of mobile sources tripwires regulations for all stationary sources that emit more than 250 tons of a designated pollutant. For greenhouse gases, thatâ€™s pretty much everything larger than a Gore-sized mansion. These stationary sources would have to get a Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit for any significant modification, as would any new source. They would also have to get operating permits. The upshot is that millions of buildings would be subject to regulations. Small businesses will similarly be affected, as millions of businesses emit that amount of greenhouse gases. Fast-food franchises, apartment blocks, hospitals â€” you name it â€” will find themselves subject to EPA bureaucracy.
To get around this, Obamaâ€™s EPA proposed a â€œtailoring ruleâ€ that would change the language of the CAA so that the threshold would be 25,000 tons. The legality of this is very much in doubt, as it amounts to the executive branch legislating, and is therefore a violation of the separation of powers. …
Taken to the extent mandated under the Clean Air Act, the EPA would probably have to order the shut-down of most industrial suppliers and users of conventional energy.
Thereâ€™s only one remedy for this otherwise inevitable regulatory nightmare. The Congress must pass H. R. 391, legislation offered by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R., Tenn.) that prohibits the EPA from using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions.