• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Epa (foxnews)

ranch hand

Well-known member
Republican Sen. James Inhofe says the Environmental Protection Agency has delayed action or "punted" on numerous regulations while President Obama tries to "earns votes" for a second term.

The Oklahoma senator and ranking Republican on the chamber's Committee on Environment and Public Works has released a report stating that when the agency approves the roughly one dozen regulations next year in 2013, they will "spell doom" for jobs and economic growth.

"The Obama-EPA plans to move full speed ahead to implement this agenda if President Obama wins a second term," Inhofe writes. "These rules taken together will inevitably result in the elimination of millions of American jobs, drive up the price of gas at the pump even more, impose construction bans on local communities and essentially shut down American oil, natural gas and coal production."

The 14-page report cites pending regulations on a wide range of environmental-economic issues including those on power plant emissions and hydraulic fracturing.

The report concluded that pending overall regulations on greenhouse gases if enacted would cost $300 billion to $400 billion annual and significantly increase the price of gasoline and home heating.

"The requirements are so strict they virtually eliminate coal as a fuel option for future electric power generation," the report states. "In a thinly veiled political move, the agency has put off finalizing the proposal until after the election."

The EPA has long been a target of Republicans lawmakers and other fiscal conservative who think the agency has overstepped its authority.

The issue has re-emerged this election cycle with Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

Obama's campaign referred a request  for comment to the administration. But the campaign staffer said earlier this month the president has doubled fuel-efficiency standards so cars and trucks "will go farther on a gallon of gas, helped double our production of job-creating clean wind and solar energies and has championed an all-of-the-above American energy strategy."

He also argued the administration has opened millions of federal acres to oil and gas development, oil production is now at 14-year high, natural gas production is at an all-time high and the country is less dependent on foreign oil than at any time in two decades arguments Obama made in the Oct. 17 presidential debate.

The report also singles out pending federal regulations on such issues as farm dust, air quality, coal ash and water-quality in Florida.

The ozone standard if enacted would cost at least $90 billion annually and would eliminate 7.4 million jobs, the report states, citing federal analysis.

The report, citing published news reports, states the Obama administration several years ago agreed to set "first-ever" federal limits on runoff in Florida, but environmental groups are still waiting for a final decision as the state is "expected to play a critical role in the outcome" of the election.

The EPA proposed new guidance document for waters covered by the Clean Water Act, proposed in April 2011, reinterprets recent Supreme Court decisions to allow the agency to expand federal control over virtually every body of water in the United States, no matter how small, the report also concludes.

 
 

Steve

Well-known member
Talk about cowards..

if it is so important that you have to destroy millions of decent jobs, and cost billions if not trillions.. then why wait...
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
This is very disturbing. I'll bet if Obama loses much of this will go into effect before Romney takes office.

I hope the word gets out loud and clear.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Steve said:
Talk about cowards..

if it is so important that you have to destroy millions of decent jobs, and cost billions if not trillions.. then why wait...



And likewise, if it will be such a benefit to the American public, why wait.
 

Traveler

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Steve said:
Talk about cowards..

if it is so important that you have to destroy millions of decent jobs, and cost billions if not trillions.. then why wait...



And likewise, if it will be such a benefit to the American public, why wait.
Well, because...... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orYmyRYBJ8M&feature=related the message fits a variety of circumstances.
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Speaking as an employee at a diesel fired power plant, I find it not too funny that the City voted to go ahead and get the catalytic converters installed on our 4 engines. How to partially pay for it? By letting the 4 operators go.

They haven't done it yet, but they ARE considering it.
 

Mike

Well-known member
OT's answer to all this EPA nonsense is that the EPA was founded during the Nixon Admin. :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
OT's answer to all this EPA nonsense is that the EPA was founded during the Nixon Admin. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Yep-- another thing tricky Dicky gave us... And the whole organization should be disbanded- and all their duties given back to the states...
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
OT's answer to all this EPA nonsense is that the EPA was founded during the Nixon Admin. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Yep-- another thing tricky Dicky gave us... And the whole organization should be disbanded- and all their duties given back to the states...

I knew you would bite. :lol:

The EPA was founded before states had an Environmental Management Agency of their own. Most had no Environmental laws/regulations either.

Corporate polluters were held accountable for once.

They have run their course and should be disbanded because all states now have an Environmental Agency.

Tricky Dick was not so tricky on this deal. He did a good thing at the right time, but that time has passed.
 

Triangle Bar

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
the whole organization should be disbanded- and all their duties given back to the states...

Well, that would be ideal but I doubt that is going to happen anytime soon.

It's quite obvious, to anyone looking, that the epa is nothing more than a tool of political expedience. In the second debate Romney mentioned how 20 some raptors had been killed in the Bakken oil fields and described the resulting lawsuits and fines which were clearly an attempt to halt production. He should have followed this up describing the hypocrisy of the wind energy sector. The epa green energy favored energy sector kills annually tens of thousand of hawks, eagles, etc., with no lawsuits or fines levied.

There's numerous stories on the web if you search for them, here's a link to a story from '09 in the WSJ.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203706604574376543308399048.html
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
OT's answer to all this EPA nonsense is that the EPA was founded during the Nixon Admin. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Yep-- another thing tricky Dicky gave us... And the whole organization should be disbanded- and all their duties given back to the states...

I knew you would bite. :lol:

The EPA was founded before states had an Environmental Management Agency of their own. Most had no Environmental laws/regulations either.

Corporate polluters were held accountable for once.

They have run their course and should be disbanded because all states now have an Environmental Agency.

Tricky Dick was not so tricky on this deal. He did a good thing at the right time, but that time has passed.

But you know as well as I do- that realistically- you will never get rid of it...Once a Federal Bureaucracy is hatched it becomes almost indestructible-- and especially one as big as EPA...

And you are right- this came about again because of "slacker" states that weren't carrying their load- and so were causing negative impacts to other states and areas of the country...
 

Mike

Well-known member
Thank God for a Conservative SCOTUS. Liberal Judges & Justices have given the green light to almost every EPA whim:

WASHINGTON | Wed Mar 21, 2012 5:11pm EDT
(Reuters) - The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that landowners can sue to challenge a federal government compliance order under the clean water law, a decision that sides with corporate groups and puts new limits on a key Environmental Protection Agency power.

The justices unanimously rejected the government's position that individuals or companies must first fail to comply with an EPA order and face potentially costly enforcement action before a court can review the case.

The opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia was a victory for an Idaho couple who challenged a 2007 EPA order that required them to restore a wetland they had filled with dirt and rock as they began to build a new vacation home near Priest Lake. They were also told to stop construction on the home.

The couple, Chantell and Michael Sackett, denied their property had ever contained a wetland and complained they were being forced to comply with an order without a court hearing.
 
Top