Uncategorized

Wilson: On Obama’s Rogue EPA

A national carbon tax masked as an “emissions marketplace” is one of the few pieces of anti-free market legislation Barack Obama has failed to pass during his first four-and-a-half years in office. Clearly this defeat has irked Obama, who is now attempting to bypass Congress and use his rogue Environmental…

A national carbon tax masked as an “emissions marketplace” is one of the few pieces of anti-free market legislation Barack Obama has failed to pass during his first four-and-a-half years in office. Clearly this defeat has irked Obama, who is now attempting to bypass Congress and use his rogue Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to impose sweeping new regulations on America’s energy industry.

Rather than taxing utilities into submission legislatively, Obama now plans on regulating them to death administratively. To that end, by 2015 Obama’s EPA will unveil strict new limits on carbon dioxide emissions from existing coal- and gas-fired facilities under his so-called “Climate Action Plan.” These “Flexible Carbon Pollution Standards for Power Plants” will be promulgated as state regulations under the auspices of the Clean Air Act.

“You shall ensure, to the greatest extent possible, that you develop approaches that allow the use of market-based instruments, performance standards and other regulatory flexibilities,” Obama’s plan states.

This level of environmental regulatory overreach is unprecedented.

Under the administration of former president George H.W. Bush, the EPA was granted authority to oversee sulphur dioxide emissions trading. However the creation of this “marketplace” was explicitly authorized via amendments to the Clean Air Act — amendments approved by overwhelming majorities of both the U.S. House and Senate.

Meanwhile prior efforts to force the EPA to arbitrarily impose such government-run “marketplaces” — absent congressional approval — have been struck down as unconstitutional.

Obama will never receive congressional support for his carbon dioxide emissions scheme — and he knows it. In fact several members of his own party are already blasting these anti-competitive measures.

(To continue reading this piece, press the “Read More …” icon below).

Bill Wilson is a board member of Americans for Limited Government. Follow him on Twitter @BillWilsonALG.

Related posts

Uncategorized

Escaping Your Timeshare Contract Safely & Effectively

FITSForum
Uncategorized

Spy Apps: Balancing Privacy And Practicality

FITSForum
Murdaughs

Buster Murdaugh Files Defamation Lawsuit

Callie Lyons

12 comments

BeaufortTiger July 30, 2013 at 9:22 am

I would much prefer a lower carbon tax than the corporate welfare that these so-called “climate exchanges” offer, in which corporations can bargain their way to paying less for their carbon footprint responsibilities and little players and start-ups get screwed over. All you have to see is why oil companies and big businesses support the climate exchanges to see why it would ultimately be bad for the consumer and the greater economy. They would be the only ones to benefit.

Reply
Frank Pytel July 30, 2013 at 9:28 am

BS. Their is neither a positive or negative impact to oil companies, or any other company that is affected by this. The only impact will be to the consumers wallet to the negative and to the gubmints coffers in the positive.

Reply
BeaufortTiger July 30, 2013 at 9:22 am

I would much prefer a lower carbon tax than the corporate welfare that these so-called “climate exchanges” offer, in which corporations can bargain their way to paying less for their carbon footprint responsibilities and little players and start-ups get screwed over. All you have to see is why oil companies and big businesses support the climate exchanges to see why it would ultimately be bad for the consumer and the greater economy. They would be the only ones to benefit.

Reply
Frank Pytel July 30, 2013 at 9:28 am

BS. Their is neither a positive or negative impact to oil companies, or any other company that is affected by this. The only impact will be to the consumers wallet to the negative and to the gubmints coffers in the positive.

Reply
tomstickler July 30, 2013 at 9:53 am Reply
Frank Pytel July 30, 2013 at 11:05 am

No. The concept is a failure

Reply
tomstickler July 30, 2013 at 9:53 am Reply
Frank Pytel July 30, 2013 at 11:05 am

No. The concept is a failure

Reply
Vanguard16 July 30, 2013 at 10:34 am

Who cares about a debt problem when the air is toxic.

Reply
Vanguard16 July 30, 2013 at 10:34 am

Who cares about a debt problem when the air is toxic.

Reply
Polyphemos July 30, 2013 at 11:27 pm

Listen you EPA people.. See my finger and my thumb…. I’mmmmm CRUSHING YOUR HEADS! CRUSHING YOUR HEADS! CRUSHING YOUR HEADS! CRUSHING YOUR HEADS! CRUSHING YOUR HEADS! CRUSHING YOUR HEADS! CRUSHING YOUR HEADS! CRUSHING YOUR HEADS! CRUSHING YOUR HEADS!…. There..

Reply
Slartibartfast July 30, 2013 at 11:27 pm

Listen you EPA people.. See my finger and my thumb…. I’mmmmm CRUSHING YOUR HEADS! CRUSHING YOUR HEADS! CRUSHING YOUR HEADS! CRUSHING YOUR HEADS! CRUSHING YOUR HEADS! CRUSHING YOUR HEADS! CRUSHING YOUR HEADS! CRUSHING YOUR HEADS! CRUSHING YOUR HEADS!…. There..

Reply

Leave a Comment