Link to Inhofe EPW Press Blog
As the case for job-killing cap-and-trade regulations founders, some activist groups are getting desperate-and throwing truth overboard. Consider the recent
full-page ad sponsored by several such groups. Though it's difficult to tell, the ad is directed at supporters of a recently proposed amendment to the House Interior-Environment appropriations bill. The amendment would have postponed for two years EPA's greenhouse gas regulations for stationary sources under the Clean Air Act. The proposed EPA timeout got ‘yes' votes from five Republicans and two Democrats (it ultimately failed on a 7 to 7 vote during the subcommittee markup of the Interior-Environment bill).
This bipartisan vote obviously rang some alarm bells; thus the ad soon followed. "Last week," the ad blared, "7 U.S. Representatives Attacked Enforcement of the Clean Air Act" [emphasis added]. This begs the obvious question: enforcement of which part of the Clean Air Act? EPA has yet to finalize greenhouse gas regulations for stationary sources, so there's nothing to enforce. The intent of the amendment is to let Congress, rather than EPA, set national climate policy-something even the Obama Administration prefers (
according to the NY Times, "Mr. Obama and Ms. Jackson have said they much prefer that Congress address global warming rather than have the E.P.A. tackle it through administrative action that could be subject to lawsuits.") We're confident the ad's sponsors are quite cognizant of that, but instead they chose duplicity over fact.
The ad then shamelessly exploits the BP tragedy in the Gulf and the recent deaths of 29 miners in West Virginia. "Investigations now show," the ad states, "that these deadly catastrophes could have been prevented if protective standards had been followed." No quarrel there, but we wonder: how are EPA's yet-to-be-implemented regulations covering greenhouse gas emissions relevant here? Short answer: they're not.
Here's the kicker: "But in a sneak attack, these seven politicians continued the assault on environmental safety by trying to choke off the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to enforce the Clean Air Act...[emphasis added]" First, one wonders just how "sneaky" it was. The amendment was proposed in broad daylight during a public markup. Second, notice the deceptive use of "environmental safety," implying that delaying impending rules governing use of a substance (CO2) necessary for life endangers lives. Actually, stopping or delaying EPA's impending costly GHG mandates would do nothing other than save jobs.
To wit, there is nothing to enforce here and safety is not an issue-even of the "environmental" variety. After all, EPA has clearly stated that cap-and-trade-which also extends to the agency's GHG regulations-won't meaningfully affect climate change (
see page 22 of its analysis of Kerry-Lieberman: greenhouse gas concentrations fail to reach stabilization in all of the scenarios analyzed).
What is an issue are the thousands of jobs on the line at small businesses in the South, manufacturing facilities in the Midwest, farms in the Heartland, and higher taxes on everything from gasoline to grapefruit. The ad's sponsors know this, and that's why they won't tell the truth.
