Until early January Carol M. Browner, President-elect Barack Obama’s pick as global warming czar, was listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for “global governance” and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change. Then Mrs. Browner’s name and biography had been removed from Socialist International’s Web page, though a photo of her speaking June 30 to the group’s congress in Greece was still available. The group’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society, the organization’s action arm on climate change, says the developed world must reduce consumption and commit to binding and punitive limits on greenhouse gas emissions Source
Browner is about to get her chance. In April, Lisa Jackson of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), issued a proposed endangerment finding that will allow the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act (CAA). One month later,an internal Obama administration document discovered by Jake Tapper of ABC, suggested that if this move is approved by the president it will severely hurt the economy, especially small businesses.
As the POTUS feels that the economy must be repainted “green” whether man-made global warming is true or not, and whether or not it will hurt our already damaged economy, the EPA is about to declare CO2 a public danger:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will early next week, possibly as soon as Monday, officially declare carbon dioxide a public danger, a trigger that could mean regulation for emitters across the economy, according to several people close to the matter.
Such an “endangerment” decision is necessary for the EPA to move ahead early next year with new emission standards for cars. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has said it could also mean large emitters such as power stations, cement kilns, crude-oil refineries and chemical plants would have to curb their greenhouse gas output.
Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?
Costs will rise for every kind of buisness from small to large, energy costs will rise and in the end consumer prices will sky rocket. But it is small businesses that will be hardest hit:
“Making the decision to regulate CO2 under the CAA for the first time is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities,” states one comment in this memo, which were collected and officially sent by the White House’s Office of Management and Budget. “Should EPA later extend this finding to stationary sources, small businesses and institutions would be subject to costly regulatory programs such as New Source Review.”
According to a preliminary endangerment finding published in April, EPA scientists fear that man-made carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are contributing to a warming of the global climate. Despite the questions arising from the Climate-gate emails, senior EPA officials said in November the agency would like to rush through a final decision in December around the time of the summit.
Joe Mendelson, Global Warming Policy Director for National Wildlife Federation, said the endangerment decision, would happen at “absolutely the right time.”
“With House legislation passed, a bipartisan Senate bill in the works, and strong EPA action a virtual certainty, the president goes to Copenhagen with a very strong hand to play,” Mr. Mendelson said.
That hand might not be as strong as Mr. Mendelson thinks. Kerry Picket who writes the Water Cooler blog at the Washington Times reports that Senator Jim Webb has warned the President not to take unilateral action when he goes to Copenhagen (Picket has Senator Webb’s letter here).
The EPA’s Ms. Jackson and President Obama’s energy and climate czar Carol Browner have said they would prefer Congress to take action but are prepared to move ahead in the absence of lawmakers crafting their own law.
Industry experts say the Clean Air Act–under which the EPA is making its endangerment finding–was designed to regulate more regional and localized air pollution, and would be a much more blunt tool than Congress could craft. Critics, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, say the endangerment declaration could spark a cascade of litigation and regulation that could harm the economy.
If the EPA decided to move ahead with emission regulations for stationary sources such as utilities, new rules would likely be in place by 2012 and could set stringent emission standards to require firms to install the best available technology.
Two people close to the matter who met with White House officials earlier this week said one change between the proposed endangerment finding issued earlier this year and the final announcement expected next week is the inclusion of the potential cost to society of no emission regulations.
In the end this is a tax disguised as a price increase, designed to jack up the cost of energy and change usage patterns, all to support what is best an unproven theory.