In The News
Tulsa World: Home renovations may hit a wall
Tuesday April 13, 2010
WASHINGTON - Oklahomans hoping to have older homes remodeled or even worked on could see projects come to a standstill or even be canceled because of a federal rule designed to protect children from lead poisoning.
That's the warning from state homebuilders.
They blame the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for failing to get the word out on a rule that takes effect next week requiring lead-safe practices to be used for renovations of pre-1978 homes, child-care facilities and school buildings.
They also claim the EPA has not even certified one trainer for the entire state of Oklahoma.
An EPA spokesman dismissed such concerns, saying local firms have had two years to get ready for the new rule.
EPA Spokesman Dale Kemery said the Oklahoma Association of Community Action Agencies in Oklahoma City is a training provider based in the state.
But a spokesman for that organization said its trainer has been certified for less than a month.
That's the warning from state homebuilders.
They blame the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for failing to get the word out on a rule that takes effect next week requiring lead-safe practices to be used for renovations of pre-1978 homes, child-care facilities and school buildings.
They also claim the EPA has not even certified one trainer for the entire state of Oklahoma.
An EPA spokesman dismissed such concerns, saying local firms have had two years to get ready for the new rule.
EPA Spokesman Dale Kemery said the Oklahoma Association of Community Action Agencies in Oklahoma City is a training provider based in the state.
But a spokesman for that organization said its trainer has been certified for less than a month.
IBD Editorial: Backdoor Energy Tax
Tuesday April 6, 2010
Pollution Control: From cars to coal mines, the imposition of economy-killing restrictions is under way. Are the new EPA regulations on auto emissions the precursor to regulating carbon dioxide by executive order?
In announcing the Environmental Protection Agency's first regulations on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from cars, Administrator Lisa Jackson has promised they won't be the last such rules stemming from the EPA's "endangerment finding" that carbon dioxide, six pounds of which every human being exhales every day, is a dangerous pollutant.
"These are the first regulations that cover greenhouse gas emissions in the United States," Jackson told reporters in a conference call last Thursday. She underscored the fact that additional regulations would be forthcoming since "the Clean Air Act talks about additional regulation needed once greenhouse gas pollution is acknowledged to be exactly that."
Under the new regulations, which begin in 2011, automakers would be required to reduce fleetwide GHG emissions each year, beginning at 295 grams of carbon dioxide per mile and culminating in a cap of no more than 250 grams per mile by the 2016 model year.
James Inhofe, R-Okla., ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, said Jackson was "imposing a backdoor energy tax on consumers created by the EPA" despite the fact that Jackson admitted to him that the regulation "won't have any meaningful climate impacts."
"This is the initial step in EPA's regulatory barrage stemming from the endangerment finding," Inhofe said.
As Inhofe related in an earlier YouTube video: "Jackson admitted to me publicly that EPA based its action today (the endangerment finding) in good measure on the findings of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. She told me that EPA accepted those findings without any serious, independent analysis to see whether they were true."
The finding is an environmental sword of Damocles held over our heads - a warning that if cap-and-trade legislation such as Waxman-Markey or Kerry-Boxer is not signed into law, the full regulatory fury of an unelected bureaucracy will be unleashed on the American people and the U.S. economy.
In announcing the Environmental Protection Agency's first regulations on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from cars, Administrator Lisa Jackson has promised they won't be the last such rules stemming from the EPA's "endangerment finding" that carbon dioxide, six pounds of which every human being exhales every day, is a dangerous pollutant.
"These are the first regulations that cover greenhouse gas emissions in the United States," Jackson told reporters in a conference call last Thursday. She underscored the fact that additional regulations would be forthcoming since "the Clean Air Act talks about additional regulation needed once greenhouse gas pollution is acknowledged to be exactly that."
Under the new regulations, which begin in 2011, automakers would be required to reduce fleetwide GHG emissions each year, beginning at 295 grams of carbon dioxide per mile and culminating in a cap of no more than 250 grams per mile by the 2016 model year.
James Inhofe, R-Okla., ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, said Jackson was "imposing a backdoor energy tax on consumers created by the EPA" despite the fact that Jackson admitted to him that the regulation "won't have any meaningful climate impacts."
"This is the initial step in EPA's regulatory barrage stemming from the endangerment finding," Inhofe said.
As Inhofe related in an earlier YouTube video: "Jackson admitted to me publicly that EPA based its action today (the endangerment finding) in good measure on the findings of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. She told me that EPA accepted those findings without any serious, independent analysis to see whether they were true."
The finding is an environmental sword of Damocles held over our heads - a warning that if cap-and-trade legislation such as Waxman-Markey or Kerry-Boxer is not signed into law, the full regulatory fury of an unelected bureaucracy will be unleashed on the American people and the U.S. economy.
Inhofe Human Events Op-Ed: President's Offshore Drilling Proposal is All Fluff, No Substance
Tuesday April 6, 2010
Republicans, don't be fooled: the President's proposal on offshore drilling will not mean more jobs, more energy, and less imported oil. If it's accepted, it certainly will mean more dependence on foreign oil, more taxes, and fewer jobs.
The proposal is clearly designed to curry favor with Republicans, and even many Democrats, who remain staunchly opposed to his global warming cap-and-trade legislation. As Senators Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman attempt to craft a cap-and-trade "compromise," President Obama seems convinced that a less than half-hearted energy plan will win him votes. But the President hasn't offered anything that's worth accepting the largest tax increase in American history.
As the Institute for Energy Research (IER) has noted, the President's policy "is not a step forward, but a huge leap backward." IER explained that, prior to Obama's announcement, the vast majority of areas in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) "were open for business." But that is no longer the case.
For one, the President paid lip service to increased energy development in the Eastern Gulf, but he must obtain congressional approval to open it. There's no sign he will seek it. He also talked about development in the Southern Atlantic, but he only proposed to study it. Then he announced that he would delay development off Virginia's coast, and, what's more, his Administration will lock up large offshore resources in Alaska.
And don't forget that President Obama's FY 2011 budget imposes $36 billion in new taxes on the oil and gas industry. According to IER, this "will discourage domestic production, especially in areas like the Southern Atlantic that have little to no existing infrastructure."
With all of this, plus empty rhetorical support from President Obama on nuclear power, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) hopes to win over Republicans to the cap-and-trade bill he's writing with Senators Kerry and Lieberman. Yet there's a raw deal shaping up: Republicans would get essentially nothing in the way of more domestic energy production in exchange for a massive energy tax that will harm consumers, destroy jobs and weaken our energy security.
The proposal is clearly designed to curry favor with Republicans, and even many Democrats, who remain staunchly opposed to his global warming cap-and-trade legislation. As Senators Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman attempt to craft a cap-and-trade "compromise," President Obama seems convinced that a less than half-hearted energy plan will win him votes. But the President hasn't offered anything that's worth accepting the largest tax increase in American history.
As the Institute for Energy Research (IER) has noted, the President's policy "is not a step forward, but a huge leap backward." IER explained that, prior to Obama's announcement, the vast majority of areas in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) "were open for business." But that is no longer the case.
For one, the President paid lip service to increased energy development in the Eastern Gulf, but he must obtain congressional approval to open it. There's no sign he will seek it. He also talked about development in the Southern Atlantic, but he only proposed to study it. Then he announced that he would delay development off Virginia's coast, and, what's more, his Administration will lock up large offshore resources in Alaska.
And don't forget that President Obama's FY 2011 budget imposes $36 billion in new taxes on the oil and gas industry. According to IER, this "will discourage domestic production, especially in areas like the Southern Atlantic that have little to no existing infrastructure."
With all of this, plus empty rhetorical support from President Obama on nuclear power, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) hopes to win over Republicans to the cap-and-trade bill he's writing with Senators Kerry and Lieberman. Yet there's a raw deal shaping up: Republicans would get essentially nothing in the way of more domestic energy production in exchange for a massive energy tax that will harm consumers, destroy jobs and weaken our energy security.
NYT: Among Weathercasters, Doubt on Warming
Tuesday March 30, 2010
The debate over global warming has created predictable adversaries, pitting environmentalists against industry and coal-state Democrats against coastal liberals.
But it has also created tensions between two groups that might be expected to agree on the issue: climate scientists and meteorologists, especially those who serve as television weather forecasters.
Climatologists, who study weather patterns over time, almost universally endorse the view that the earth is warming and that humans have contributed to climate change. There is less of a consensus among meteorologists, who predict short-term weather patterns.
But it has also created tensions between two groups that might be expected to agree on the issue: climate scientists and meteorologists, especially those who serve as television weather forecasters.
Climatologists, who study weather patterns over time, almost universally endorse the view that the earth is warming and that humans have contributed to climate change. There is less of a consensus among meteorologists, who predict short-term weather patterns.
Chu sees natural gas and small nuclear reactors as part of a low-carbon future
Tuesday March 30, 2010
The natural gas industry needs to police itself to ensure that there's no pollution from fracturing, or "fracking," a technique that uses water and chemicals to push apart rocks and release gas, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said in a talk at Georgetown University on Monday.
"Fracking can be polluting if done irresponsibly," Chu said. "We are going to have some regulation going on that. It can be done, but the industry has to demonstrate to the public that it can be done responsibly," he said.
Though fracking can pollute the water table, natural gas is one in a portfolio of energy sources that will be necessary in the coming oil-constrained world, he said. Oil will become more expensive as resources are depleted and production moves to more unconventional and energy-intensive sources such as tar sands, oil shales and resources buried under the deep ocean.
"We need a new industrial revolution that decreases our depe
"Fracking can be polluting if done irresponsibly," Chu said. "We are going to have some regulation going on that. It can be done, but the industry has to demonstrate to the public that it can be done responsibly," he said.
Though fracking can pollute the water table, natural gas is one in a portfolio of energy sources that will be necessary in the coming oil-constrained world, he said. Oil will become more expensive as resources are depleted and production moves to more unconventional and energy-intensive sources such as tar sands, oil shales and resources buried under the deep ocean.
"We need a new industrial revolution that decreases our depe
PREEMPTION TIME
Monday March 29, 2010
Preemption: it's the issue everyone's talking about. We see this as a welcome development, as policymakers are now asking: what is preemption? And if preemption is part of climate legislation, what, exactly, are we preempting?
To our minds, preemption means preventing the hijacking of environmental statutes either to force Congress's hand to adopt cap-and-trade legislation or to achieve backdoor greenhouse gas regulations. These are statutes, of course, that were never designed nor intended to reduce greenhouse gases. Comprehensive preemption must also address state climate programs as well greenhouse gas "nuisance" lawsuits that benefit the green tort bar at the expense of jobs and consumers.
To our minds, preemption means preventing the hijacking of environmental statutes either to force Congress's hand to adopt cap-and-trade legislation or to achieve backdoor greenhouse gas regulations. These are statutes, of course, that were never designed nor intended to reduce greenhouse gases. Comprehensive preemption must also address state climate programs as well greenhouse gas "nuisance" lawsuits that benefit the green tort bar at the expense of jobs and consumers.
Congress Daily: Cantwell-Collins Duo Skeptical Of Trio
Wednesday March 24, 2010
While a trio of senators this week is still piecing together a potential deal on climate and energy that could begin to be drafted over the upcoming two-week spring break, one bipartisan Senate duo is not yet convinced and may siphon off much-needed support for that effort.
Sens. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, are still pushing for their alternative "cap-and-dividend" idea that would avoid setting up a new carbon trading market. They say their plan, which has been well-received by some energy experts, avoids the volatility and speculation that has skewed oil and other commodity markets, while including a direct refund for consumers based on revenue generated from charging businesses for emissions. It is also, they say, far simpler than the cap-and-trade plan the House passed last year.
Sens. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, are still pushing for their alternative "cap-and-dividend" idea that would avoid setting up a new carbon trading market. They say their plan, which has been well-received by some energy experts, avoids the volatility and speculation that has skewed oil and other commodity markets, while including a direct refund for consumers based on revenue generated from charging businesses for emissions. It is also, they say, far simpler than the cap-and-trade plan the House passed last year.
Inhofe Op-Ed: A solution to earmarks
Wednesday March 24, 2010
Regarding "Defending earmarks turning into tough battle" (Our Views, March 21): I whole-heartedly agree with your first three paragraphs. I think everyone recognizes that earmarks accounted for less than 2 percent of federal discretionary spending and that eliminating them would not save taxpayers a nickel. I also appreciate your comments on my five-year freeze of nonsecurity discretionary spending.
While your editorial acknowledged that I am correct in my technical explanation of earmarks, the newspaper draws an unfortunate conclusion: that the "politics of this issue has moved well beyond" my explanation. As many Oklahomans know, I have never been one to do what is politically expedient. This is why, for eight years, I took on the issue of global warming all alone. At that time, the politics had "moved well beyond" questioning the science. Now I have been vindicated
While your editorial acknowledged that I am correct in my technical explanation of earmarks, the newspaper draws an unfortunate conclusion: that the "politics of this issue has moved well beyond" my explanation. As many Oklahomans know, I have never been one to do what is politically expedient. This is why, for eight years, I took on the issue of global warming all alone. At that time, the politics had "moved well beyond" questioning the science. Now I have been vindicated
Washington Examiner Editorial: Obama's EPA stifles new energy gains
Wednesday March 24, 2010
It would be simpler if President Obama leveled with energy industry officials and the American people and admitted he's doing everything in his power to suffocate this country's ability to find and develop critically needed new energy supplies. But instead of being honest about it, Obama hides behind misleading rhetoric about the wonders of "green" energy, even as his minions erect a multitude of new bureaucratic roadblocks to the development of the oil and natural gas resources needed to keep American homes heated, factories humming, and laptops processing. These new resources could also create millions of new jobs, generate trillions of dollars in tax revenues, and spark economic expansion in rural areas like western Pennsylvania and upstate New York that have known only decline for generations.
Inhofe Op-Ed: Climategate Shows There's No Global Warming Consensus
Tuesday March 23, 2010
Call it the global warming crackup, an unfolding process of contradictory claims about glaciers, weather, and scientists asserting a consensus when none exists. Global warming alarmists can't make up their minds because the entire basis for their energy rationing project has collapsed into a mess of errors, exaggerations, and deceit. Let me explain.
The Obama administration said the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is the "gold standard" for climate science, yet now the Environmental Protection Agency administrator won't defend it. The IPCC and Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize. Now the IPCC has retracted several false claims concerning, among other things, rain forests shrinking, crops dying, and sea levels rising. We've been told weather is not to be confused with climate, except when you have heat waves or blizzards. We've been told cap-and-trade would create thousands of green jobs, yet the Congressional Budget Office, Department of Energy, National Black Chamber of Commerce, and others say it would mean a net loss of jobs.
The Obama administration said the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is the "gold standard" for climate science, yet now the Environmental Protection Agency administrator won't defend it. The IPCC and Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize. Now the IPCC has retracted several false claims concerning, among other things, rain forests shrinking, crops dying, and sea levels rising. We've been told weather is not to be confused with climate, except when you have heat waves or blizzards. We've been told cap-and-trade would create thousands of green jobs, yet the Congressional Budget Office, Department of Energy, National Black Chamber of Commerce, and others say it would mean a net loss of jobs.
