From Fox News, “Administration Warns of ‘Command-and-Control’ Regulation Over Emissions“:

The Obama administration is warning Congress that if it doesn’t move to regulate greenhouse gases, the Environmental Protection Agency will take a “command-and-control” role over the process in a way that could hurt business.

The warning, from a top White House economic official who spoke Tuesday on condition of anonymity, came on the eve of EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s address to the international conference on climate change in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Command-and-control economies are the hallmarks of totalitarian states.

UPDATE: Here’s the full quote from the official speaking on background:

“If you don’t pass this legislation, then … the EPA is going to have to regulate in this area,” the official said. “And it is not going to be able to regulate on a market-based way, so it’s going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty.”

Uncertainty is indeed a serious economic threat. But a command-and-control takeover of huge swaths of economy, that’s a threat to liberty.

UPDATE (Thursday, 3:50 p.m.): Charles Krauthammer:

A threat and an amazing admission. It admits how bad the law in the Senate [is] today — that is being held up on – cap-and-trade. [It] in and of itself is going to kill jobs.

But secondly, if you [Congress] don’t do that, we [the administration] will do something worse — impose the EPA regulations, which is cap without trade. There isn’t a market mechanism. You can’t sell or purchase a permit to emit CO2.

So it’s command and control, which is a polite way of saying Soviet control, meaning it’s all regulation … And it is an amazing admission, and it is a kind of blackmail. Either you do this in the Senate and pass a bill or we will do it unilaterally.

Wall Street Journal editorial, “An Inconvenient Democracy“:

With cap and trade blown apart in the Senate, the White House has chosen to impose taxes and regulation across the entire economy under clean-air laws that were written decades ago and were never meant to apply to carbon. With this doomsday machine activated, Mr. Obama hopes to accomplish what persuasion and debate among his own party manifestly cannot.

This reckless “endangerment finding” is a political ultimatum: The many Democrats wary of levelling huge new costs on their constituents must surrender, or else the EPA’s carbon police will inflict even worse consequences.

The Journal concludes: “The White House has opened a Pandora’s box that will be difficult to close, that is breathtakingly undemocratic, and that the country, if not liberal politicians, will come to regret.”

Charles Krauthammer, Fox News All-Stars:

Look, it’s blackmail. It is a way of saying to Congress: Either you do cap-and-trade or we will do cap, no trade. We will regulate every aspect of American life if the EPA now has in its power — and perhaps it will enact it over time — to intrude on every aspect of American life. Essentially what it can do is to regulate emissions from any institution, any enterprise, any apartment block that emits more than 250 tons of CO2 in a year, which is a very low level.

It [EPA] says it will raise that higher but it doesn’t actually have the authority to actually raise it. …

It really is what Vaclav Klaus, the president of the Czech Republic, said: Environmentalism is the new socialism. It is a way for the feds — for the best and brightest in the federal government — to regulate all aspects of life. It used to be in the name of socialism, which was social equality. Now it’s in the name of the planet.

It is a smart strategy on the part of the left, but it is a hell of a way to do it. If you want to do it, at least you do it by the consensus of Congress. If you do it by regulation, there will be a revolution on the administration’s hands.

The National Association of Manufacturers was cited in many news reports on the Environmental Protection Agency’s declaration Monday that greenhouse gases threaten the public health, triggering the EPA’s regulation of carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Some examples:

Wall Street Journal, “EPA Calls Greenhouse Gases a Public Threat“:

EPA action won’t do much to combat climate change, and “is certain to come at a huge cost to the economy,” said the National Association of Manufacturers, a trade group that stands as a proxy for U.S. industry.

USA Today, “EPA’s carbon dioxide emissions ruling could raise energy costs“:

Industry groups say EPA regulation would eventually drive up energy costs, lead to lost jobs and delays in project permits and construction. More immediately, “This adds more uncertainty and could impact how companies make decisions,” says Keith McCoy, vice president of the National Association of Manufacturers.

ABC News, “EPA Determines Greenhouse Gases Harmful to People and Environment“:

“I’ve heard from every industry sector, I’ve heard from utilities, I’ve heard from large manufacturers, I’ve heard from small manufacturers. There is a significant concern from every single manufacturing sector out there,” said Keith McCoy, vice president of energy and resources policy at the National Association of Manufacturers.

Washington Times editorial, “Reckless ‘endangerment’ for breathing“:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce warned that the ruling “could result in a top-down command-and-control regime that will choke off growth by adding new mandates to virtually every major construction and renovation project.” The National Association of Manufacturers likewise blasted the decision, and political and think-tank leaders warned of massive job losses because of it.

The NAM’s news release is here.

Keith McCoy, vice president for Energy and Resources Policy, issued a statement on behalf of the National Association of Manufacturers in reaction to the Environmental Protection Agency’s announcement of an endangerment finding, “NAM Says EPA Endangerment Finding Will Hurt Manufacturers’ Competitiveness.” Excerpt:

The EPA is moving forward with an agenda that will put additional burdens on manufacturers, cost jobs and drive up the price of energy. This finding comes when unemployment is hovering at 10 percent, and many manufacturers are struggling to stay in business. It is doubtful that this endangerment finding will achieve its stated goal, but it is certain to come at a huge cost to the economy.

Our nation needs a comprehensive federal policy that will achieve environmental results without inflicting unnecessary economic harm. This is a complex issue that deserves a rigorous, public and transparent debate in Congress.

By forcing manufacturers to meet unrealistic goals and placing burdensome costs on them, the EPA is hurting America’s competitiveness.

That, and it’s one of the greatest bureaucratic power grabs in the history of the United States.

From the EPA:

• Press release
• Administrator Jackson’s Speech
• Read more about the endangerment finding

The NAM’s Bryan Brendle attended the briefing this afternoon and reports that questions about Climategate were simply dismissed. (See his Twitter posts here.) Administrator Lisa Jackson also broke away during the presentation, having to fly off to Copenhagen.

The EPA’s news conference is scheduled for 1:15 p.m. today.

• Wall Street Journal, “US EPA to make ‘significant climate announcement’“
• Reuters, “US EPA to make ‘significant climate announcement’“
• Bloomberg, “Obama May Visit Climate Talks Armed With EPA Carbon Ruling“

Later this week, EPA Administrator Jackson heads to Copenhagen to attend the donor nations’ climate conference.

And in contrapuntal news, President Obama gives a jobs speech at the Brookings Institution Tuesday.

Because you can’t spell “imperial” without EPA.

Reuters, “EPA C02 endangerment finding to White House”

UPDATE: WSJ Environmental Capital blog, “Climate Fight: EPA Sends Global Warming Finding to White House”

Energy and Environment Daily reports that House Democratic leaders last night released a revised, 1,201-page energy and global warming bill, and the floor debate is now expected Friday.

But first things first: Today’s is the deadline for commenting on the EPA proposed endangerment finding that would allow regulation of carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act. Congress never intended the Clean Air Act to serve as the means to regulate all human activity, but here it comes.

And here come the attorneys. From Glenn Lammi, Washington Legal Foundation, in U.S. News and World Report, “EPA Climate Change Ruling Would be a Stimulus for Lawyers–And No One Else“:

A formal government proclamation that greenhouse gases are a threat to public health and welfare, and are thus subject to the Clean Air Act, is a dream come true for plaintiffs’ lawyers and litigious professional activists. Up to now, litigation has thus far, thankfully, played a minor role in addressing climate change. Courts have largely rebuffed lawsuits by state attorneys general alleging that greenhouse gas emitters were a “public nuisance.” (A $400 million nuisance and conspiracy suit filed against 23 energy companies by an entire Alaskan village remains undecided.)

But the slow drip of climate change lawsuits is about to become a deluge, drowning the judiciary and thousands of businesses, in a tsunami of litigation.

Swiss Re, a leading insurance company, recently opined that global warming suits will explode and expand faster than asbestos litigation. The EPA’s endangerment finding will be cited in countless class actions and other suits alleging that productive economic activity caused health problems or led to damaging heat, flooding, drought, wildfires, or the spread of pathogens.

As Glenn suggests: Green jobs!

The NAM has a website devoted to the proposed finding, www.nam.org/epa.

The deadline for commenting on the EPA’s proposed “endangerment finding” that carbon dioxide qualifies as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act is Tuesday, June 23.

The National Association of Manufacturers had asked the EPA for a 60-day extension for comments, arguing that the vast scope of the proposal warranted further time for argument and deliberation. The EPA last week rejected the request. (Letter here.)

The NAM has a website with resources to submit comments to the EPA, http://www.nam.org/EPA. The basic argument:

If the EPA ultimately finds green house gas (GHG) emissions to be an “endangerment” to public health, the agency would trigger a variety of air quality programs that would regulate GHG emissions while doing little to address global climate change. This finding would not only undermine recovery, but could also prevent the most environmentally sophisticated technologies from being incorporated into a manufacturer’s operation. It is a threat to every business, every family and every person in America. 

At a time when our economy is in a severe recession, this proposed regulation would cost jobs and delay our country’s recovery.  The EPA is attempting to use the Clean Air Act as a blunt instrument to regulate carbon.   It is attempting to use the Clean Air Act to do something it was never intended to do.  This regulation would take our country in exactly the wrong direction and cost many more American jobs.

As the website urges, “Don’t Let the EPA Regulate Your Life!”

The EPA’s online docket for the proposal is: http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171

Since almost all human activity produces carbon dioxide, an endangerment finding would give the EPA unprecedented authority over the daily lives of Americans.  The proposal represents bureaucracy’s greatest threat to U.S. economic competiveness, the market economy and individual freedom.

The National Association of Manufacturing’s Bryan Brendle testified at today’s EPA hearing on the proposed Clean Air Act endangerment finding for carbon dioxide. From his statement:

Triggering the various permitting programs under the Clean Air Act through an endangerment finding will add costly delays to manufacturers seeking to expand operations or upgrade their manufacturing processes in a manner that conserves energy. An endangerment finding would not only undermine recovery, but could also prevent the most environmentally sophisticated technologies from being incorporated into a manufacturer’s operation. The clean air laws were designed to focus on local pollutants. Greenhouse gas emissions, however, are global in nature and require a new framework.

The NAM looks forward to continuing to work with Congress and President Obama’s Administration to discuss a modern and comprehensive climate policy that will achieve environmental objectives without inflicting harm on an economy attempting to recover and grow again.

The EPA has scheduled a second public airing of the issue in Seattle Thursday. Details.

The comment period has 35 more days to run, and the NAM has developed a website with background materials and resources for submitting comments to the EPA. Go here: http://www.nam.org/epa

There’s lots of Washington, D.C., news, scuttlebutt, speculation and on-shining going over the cap-and-trade legislation being worked on behind closed doors in the U.S. House. The danger is that the legislative and budgetary activities may distract the public from the EPA’s regulatory power grab on greenhouse gases, which is continuing to run in the meantime.

New York Times, “Waxman buys time with pledge to produce climate bill next week”

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) bought himself a little bit more time yesterday to produce a consensus on global warming and energy legislation amid a vocal uprising from within his party’s moderate ranks to turn the Energy and Commerce Committee’s attention over to health care.

Waxman pledged to produce a new version of draft legislation next week while again promising to pass the bill out of the full committee before the Memorial Day recess.

Reuters, “Obama budget sticks to auctioning all CO2 permits“:

WASHINGTON, May 7 (Reuters) – President Barack Obama’s $3.55 trillion budget, released on Thursday, retains his plan to cut climate-warming carbon dioxide emissions by auctioning off 100 percent of emission permits to industries.

That is at odds with some in Congress, including members of Obama’s own Democratic Party, who are pushing for 50 percent or more of those emissions to be given away in the early stages of the plan to ease the transition to a lower-carbon economy.

As we noted above, the political and economic battles bring with them the risk that the outrageous regulatory overreach and political power grab from the Environmental Protection Agency will receive less attention. We’re talking about the EPA’s proposed endangerment finding for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, which, if adopted, would effectively give the EPA authority to regulate the entire U.S. economy.

The comment period has 45 days to run, and we urge manufacturers and anyone else disturbed by this unprecedented regulatory assault to submit a comment to the EPA.

The NAM has created a website with a petition and a draft letter to Congress opposing the endangerment finding. Please visit the site, and if so moved — for example, if the prospect of EPA controlling your company’s operations worry you — please express your objections.

The website: www.nam.org/epa