|
Mail
Magazine 24...
Carbon
Regulation a Case of Too Much Government?
March 6, 2012
Hundreds of
industries, groups, and even some states have taken the Environmental
Protection Agency to court in an attempt to block it from regulating
carbon
dioxide.
Since the
EPA declared CO2 a harmful pollutant, by law it must treat it like
other toxins,
meaning the agency may have to regulate more than 6 million sources of
CO2.
Heritage
Foundation economists predict such a move will cost the economy almost
$7
trillion by the year 2029, in some years more than $600 billion.
If that
happens, the Cato Institute’s Patrick Michaels said it would be “the
most
sweeping and intrusive regulatory effort in the history of this
country.”
But
according to EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, some fear CO2 will cause
so much
global warming, the government should regulate the gas - a move Rep.
Henry
Waxman, D-Calif., supports.
“They
understand that stalling action on climate change means more intense
and
frequent heat waves, more droughts, more flooding, more loss of
coastline,”
Waxman said.
Opponents
worry the EPA may soon be sticking its nose into almost every
American’s life.
“There were
literally hundreds of petitioners challenging these regulations,” Ted
Hadzi-Antich, with the Pacific Legal Foundation, told CBN News.
Some
protested labeling CO2, one of nature’s most common elements, harmful.
“Carbon
dioxide of course, as everybody knows, is a ubiquitous natural
substance that’s
absolutely essential to life on earth,” Hadzi-Antich said.
“CO2 makes
plants grow better,” Michaels said.
“You and I
are major emitting sources of carbon dioxide,” Hadzi-Antich noted.
And because
it comes from almost everything, “This is the first EPA regulation
that’s
casting its net to virtually every nook and cranny of the national
economy,” he
explained.
The
regulation is likely to cost 800,000 jobs a year, and in some
industries, more
than 50 percent of the work force will be wiped out.
The EPA
realizes the public’s not ready to put up with that. Consequently, the
agency
changed the Clean Air Act so, at least at the start, it only has to go
after
huge CO2 emitters, like power plants and big factories.
But that
move has led many to complain that only Congress can legally revise the
Clean
Air Act.
“That’s a
sweeping change in the law that the people would have to approve, not
some
faceless bureaucrat in the Environmental Protection Agency,” Michaels
said.
Influential
forces are pushing for radical action by EPA.
“Within
just 10 years, we will have built enough high carbon energy
infrastructure to
lock our planet into an irreversible and devastating amount of global
warming,”
Waxman said.
If the
courts do force the EPA to regulate most carbon-emitters, it won’t just
hit
producers and manufacturers, but even 37,000 places of worship.
“I mean if
they run a kitchen -- they’re going to be regulated,” Hadzi-Antich said.
And what do
proponents of regulating CO2 believe will all this accomplish? During
the next
50 years, scientists figure the temperature will drop.
“Would be
about 8-hundreths of a degree Celsius for 50 years,” Michaels noted.
“That’s an
amount that’s too small to measure, but the costs are enormous.”
Source:
cbnNews
Read this
and other articles at Mail Magazine 24
|
