House Subcommittee Moves To Ban EPA GHG Regulation
House Republicans took the first steps towards banning the EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gases, as the Energy and Power Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved HR 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011. In their statements today, Republican committee leaders cited rising gas prices and negative impacts on American businesses as the main reasons for attempting to strip the EPA of its ability to regulate emissions of
Water vapor, Carbon dioxide, Methane, Nitrous oxide, Sulfur hexafluoride, Hydrofluorocarbons, Perfluorocarbon and any other substance subject to, or proposed to be subject to, regulation, action, or consideration under this Act to address climate change.
Intriguingly, subcomittee Chairman Ed Whitfield’s statement [ PDF] names a number of industry groups who support HR910, including the National Association of Manufacturers, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Farm Bureau Federation, National Mining Association, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, and the National Association of Realtors… but no auto industry group was named as a supporter of the bill (current regulation of GHGs only cover power stations and large-scale emitters). HR910 has been fast-tracked to the full Energy and Commerce Committee, which will begin hearings on Monday. According to Bloomberg, Senate Democrats are vowing to block the bill, arguing that Republicans attempts to link the bill to gas prices are misleading and that if passed, it would increase harmful pollution.
More by Edward Niedermeyer
Comments
Join the conversation
First off - DDT was banned without any proof that it ever harmed anything but insects, and about a million people die each year due to malaria - but dey be ova in Aff-ri-ka so dey don't count. Folks, they do count and I'm one old white redneck that thinks it's more than a sin that we buy into this whole enviro -weenie bull squeez. And, this whole global warming crap is nothing but a scam - if you are to stupid to follow the money trail then you deserve to rot in hell.
Dumb Americans.
>>WRONG WRONG SO WRONG....I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. Let's be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. . . . I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. . . . To an outsider, the most significant innovation in the global warming controversy is the overt reliance that is being placed on models. Back in the days of nuclear winter, computer models were invoked to add weight to a conclusion: "These results are derived with the help of a computer model." But now large-scale computer models are seen as generating data in themselves. No longer are models judged by how well they reproduce data from the real world -- increasingly, models provide the data. As if they were themselves a reality. And indeed they are, when we are projecting forward. There can be no observational data about the year 2100. There are only model runs. This fascination with computer models is something I understand very well. Richard Feynman called it a disease. I fear he is right. Because only if you spend a lot of time looking at a computer screen can you arrive at the complex point where the global warming debate now stands. Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we're asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost their minds? 'Aliens Cause Global Warming' From a lecture delivered by the late Michael Crichton at the California Institute of Technology http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122603134258207975.html AGW is religion at best, not science. The models have been wildly off, the Earth has been cooling for 15 years. So now it's "climate change". Why do the usual suspects support AGW? It's about new tax revenue and special interest rent-seeking, supported for those reasons, not science or saving the planet. Like ethanol, once the stupidity happens, it is very hard to undo as the special interests protect what they gain from the public. The Dems were too cowardly to pass legislation to regulate GHG so they're having the EPA do it. That's their undoing because once the EPA acts it goes to the courts and so-called "climate science" will go on trial. That is something the AGW scammers can't win because it's not science, it's politics.
re: PETEMORAN denier - what a cliche Strawman? Even a simple person should know that regulation and taxes redistribute wealth. That's just one reason "climate change" is losing.