States, Industry, Farming, Energy: The Endangerment Edict

From today’s Wall Street Journal, “States Want Delay on Emission Rules“:

A growing number of state regulators are urging the Obama administration to slow the rollout of proposed federal rules curbing industrial greenhouse-gas emissions, saying the administration’s approach could overwhelm them with paperwork, delay construction projects and undercut their own efforts to fight climate change.

The concerns echo some criticisms that business groups — including the American Petroleum Institute and the National Association of Manufacturers — have voiced about the potential consequence of new regulations, though the states generally don’t challenge the legality of the proposed regulations, as some business groups have. Indeed, many state regulators continue to say they support the Environmental Protection Agency’s effort to regulate greenhouse gases. Their concerns, they say, have more to do with how quickly such rules should be phased in, and how to pay for an expansion in regulatory oversight at a time when their budgets are in the red.

The Journal also notes that “Kansas’s Department of Health and Environment has warned that the EPA proposal will affect some animal-feeding operations as well as some municipal solid-waste landfills.”

Indeed, the impact on farm country of the Imperial EPA’s endangerment edict would be severe. The National Cattleman’s Beef Association on Dec. 24, 2009, challenged the rule in D.C. Circuit Court of the Appeals. From the NCBA, “NCBA Files Appeal of EPA’s ‘Endangerment Finding’ Rule“:

“EPA’s finding is not based on a rigorous scientific analysis; yet it would trigger a cascade of future greenhouse gas regulations with sweeping impacts across the entire U.S. economy,” said Tamara Thies, chief environmental counsel. “Why the Administration decided to move forward on this type of rule when there’s so much uncertainty surrounding humans’ contribution to climate change is perplexing,” Thies said.

Leave a Reply