New EPA Regulations Proving More Costly

By Guest Journalist Ryan Halston

A new set of EPA regulations could prove again to be costly for American industry leaders. The March act slated to cut toxic air emission by 91 percent could end up causing a major burden for the economy.

The EPA toxic air rule has had shown an estimated $11 billion cost to industry, as well as hurt around 3 percent of American coal generation. The power industry is starting to feel a bit of unease with regards to the regulations, as testing is taking place on the amount of hit that business leaders could take.

The timeline of the recent regulations has also been called into question. The chairman of American Electric Power has openly criticized the timeline of the regulation as a “train wreck” primarily because the swiftness would hurt the economy. An estimated difference of $5 billion in economic hit could ensue as a result of a swift timeline, as opposed to something that’s more drawn out. Without a change in the actual law, there would be no legal way to affect the timeline as well. Power industry leaders are in favor of a 2020 deadline, while the regulations currently call for an end time of 2015.

The toxic air regulations are just another in what seems to be a long line of initiatives from the EPA in 2010 and 2011 that are rubbing many the wrong way. A common complaint involving the EPA’s work in the past year has been the view that the agency is becoming a power hungry organization. With the levy of constant costly regulations and lack of responses from the EPA, this connotation could be proving true.

The EPA has somewhat gone off track from some of its major goals in recent years. The constant barrage from the GOP has possibly forced the agency into constantly defending greenhouse gas emission regulations, possibly taking some their own focus away from other areas. When you look at it, the EPA just seems to be a bit off course. They have taken some of their resources away from programs like the fight on water contamination and work against asbestos exposure in exchange for more time devoted defending and levying regulations that work to cost companies major money.

Perhaps the most unfortunate thing about this battle is that the EPA may end up causing major hits to itself in the end. If the agency continues to defend costly regulations that have little to no effect on health, business leaders and GOP officials will most likely continue doing what is necessary to right the ship. This could include further EPA budget cuts and more legislation firing back at the environmental agency.

Disgust with "Global Warming" & "Climate Change"

We've had it with "Global Warming" and its morphed backup twin "Climate Change." We recommend the next politician or politically correct ad touting the farce of the manmade affair be waterboarded until all lies and hypocrisy are exposed and truth comes out. We are tired of hypocritical politicians like Al Gore who fly around the world and live like kings in huge mansions when--should they actually believe their lying rhetoric--live as vegans (no meat mind you: cows fart and produce methane; of course human flatus should be regulated as well!) in Ghandi-esque shacks riding bicycles or mass transit to get around.

And today, ConocoPhillips, BP America and Caterpillar showed their selfsame disgust with the environmental wackos by pulling out of the US Climate Action Partnership (USCAP). This is significant because both BP and Caterpillar were two of fourteen founding members of USCAP which seeks to reduce 80% of greenhouse gases (including carbon dioxide) by 2050. Nacilbupera praises today's actions by these three corporations and feels Rio Tinto, a company with major local holdings should act quickly to do the same.

December's announcement by Lisa Jackson of the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide (she uses the umbrella term "greenhouse gases") which carbon dioxide is the very air we exhale and which is vital for the sustainability of plants is preposterous. Although Nacilbupera is a self-described "Republican Environmentalist" (perhaps better said "Conservationist") who deeply cares about this beautiful God-created planet and the shared stewardship we have for her, we would rather see the EPA abolished and pay down the debt than waste our money trying to regulate carbon dioxide.

Understandably the EPA feels pressure from the abominable 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA ruling, yet the Bush administration was able to find a workable solution without having to regulate carbon dioxide. It took the overreaching Obama administration to regulate the air we exhale. (Yes, Bush. We Miss You!) Obviously in light of Climategate and lies about the Himalayan glaciers melting, emails of false facts, and climatologists having to admit that there hasn't been any global warming since 1995, a revisiting by the Supreme Court is needed on this issue.

In all, we feel that legitimate air quality issues such as we have along the Wasatch Front with our winter inversions--including betimes the nation's worst air--have been hijacked like the Denver balloon boy hoax. Real and immediate health problems are deluged by the global warming zealots floating their empty ideology. We praise Gov. Herbert's announcement of the environmental study in cooperation with the NSF earlier this month, yet worry that disgust with global warming may dampen resolve for action.