29 July 2014
In the News
Obama on Climate Change: We Must Make Sure the Planet Works Charlie Spiering, Big Government, 25 July 2014
Fracking, InsideClimate, and Public Integrity Steve Everley, Energy in Depth, 24 July 2014
California Environmentalism Conflicting with Pocketbook Concerns Molly Peterson, KPCC, 24 July 2014
Mark Levin Sues EPA for Destroying Emails C. J. Ciaramella, Washington Free Beacon, 24 July 2014
William Yeatman, GlobalWarming.org, 23 July 2014
The Struggle to Mainstream Electric Vehicles Allen Brooks, Master Resource, 23 July 2014
Federal Lands Deserve an Energy Boom Too Robert Bradley, Jr., Forbes, 21 July 2014
Sue and Settle: Another Way for Greens to Halt Progress Stephen Moore, Investor
News You Can Use
Poll: Americans Give Low Priority to Climate Change
poll of likely voters in competitive Senate states and House districts identified the environment as the national issue that concerns them the most, beating out other issues such as taxes, terrorism, and foreign affairs. The highest ranking concerns were the economy and jobs, which were chosen by 21 percent and 10 percent of respondents, respectively.
Inside the Beltway
William Yeatman
Senate EPW Republicans Audition Arguments against EPA’s
Clean Power Plan
On Wednesday morning, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy testified on the agency’s climate
regulations for existing power plants before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, during which the minority party auditioned a number of arguments in opposition to the rule. The regulation is known as the Clean Power Plan. It was proposed by EPA on June 2 and would, if finalized in its current form, effectively overhaul the electric industry in accordance with
EPA’s climate goals.
Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) argued that the rule represented an unprecedented executive power grab, which is true. Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) argued that the Clean Power Plan would shut down coal-fired power plants, which is also true. And Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-
Okla.) presented evidence that the rule wouldn’t actually impact global
temperatures and is, therefore, all pain and no gain. These polemics are all spot-on. However, the finest argument was put forth by Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wy.), who argued that the rule was an outrageous example of regulatory capture.
Here’s what he said:
On July 6th of this year, the NYT wrote a piece about the outsized role that the NRDC
had in developing the EPA’s new regulations to curb power plant
emissions…The article
says it was a remarkable victory for the NRDC. Now, for those outside the beltway, NRDC is a $120 million a year lobbying machine, backed by Hollywood elites. It is absolutely shameful to me that the EPA, under the direction of this administrator, would
allow a team of lawyers and lobbyists to draft their regulations…
EPA has decided to push a rule that was drafted behind closed doors by powerful,
wealthy Washington lawyers and lobbyists at the NRDC. Let’s be clear, NRDC is a
wealthy, elite, powerful lobbying machine with more influence over decision making in Washington than any ordinary U.S. citizen. They have millions which gives them access.
The EPA turns a deaf ear on those that don’t.
Bravo, Mr. Barrasso! The Wyoming Senator concluded his opening statement by throwing down a gauntlet. He
challenged EPA and NRDC to comply with the Committee’s information requests, in order to
ascertain the extent to which EPA has been captured by green special interests.