View Full Version : Obama Threatens Congress: Regulate Greenhouse Gas or Hurt Business

12-11-2009, 08:44 AM
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.

Jackson, however, tried to strike a tone of cooperation in her address Wednesday, explaining that the EPA's new powers to regulate greenhouse gases will be used to complement legislation pending in Congress, not replace it.

"This is not an 'either-or' moment. It's a 'both-and' moment," she said.

But while administration officials have long said they prefer Congress take action on climate change, the economic official who spoke with reporters Tuesday night made clear that the EPA will not wait and is prepared to act on its own.

And it won't be pretty.

"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."

Climate change legislation that passed the House is stuck in the Senate, but the EPA finding Monday was seen as a boost to the U.S. delegation in Denmark trying to convince other countries that Washington is capable of taking action to follow through with any global commitments.

The economic official explained that congressional action could be better for the economy, since it would provide "compensation" for higher energy prices, especially for small businesses dealing with those higher energy costs. Otherwise, the official warned that the kind of "uncertainty" generated by unilateral EPA action would be a huge "deterrent to investment," in an economy already desperate for jobs.

"So, passing the right kind of legislation with the right kind of compensations seems to us to be the best way to reduce uncertainty and actually to encourage investment," the official said.

Republicans fear that the EPA will ultimately end up stepping in to regulate emissions -- though many oppose the congressional legislation as well. They had urged Jackson to withdraw the finding in light of leaked e-mails from a British research center that appeared to show scientists discussing the manipulation of climate data.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., ranking Republican on the House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming, said Tuesday he is going to attend the Copenhagen conference to inform world leaders that despite any promises made by President Obama, no new laws will be passed in the United States until the "scientific fascism" ends.

"I call it 'scientific fascism,'" Sensenbrenner said during a press conference with fellow climate change skeptics. Sensenbrenner said, "The U.N. should throw a red flag" on scientists who support global warming to the exclusion of dissent.

Administration officials, though, said the e-mails do not change the debate.

Former Vice President Al Gore, a leader in the movement on man-caused climate change, told CNN on Wednesday that the e-mails in questions were 10 years old and taken "out of context."

Fox News' Major Garrett and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

video: Obama says Cap & Trade will cause utility bills to sky rocket to force the American people to.......
YouTube - Obama: My Plan Makes Electricity Rates Skyrocket (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4&feature=related)

12-11-2009, 08:49 AM
In other news, Obama accused Republicans of fear mongering the other day.

12-11-2009, 09:25 AM
I have been a business owner since 1984, and when I tell people that large corporations offer incentives for us to hire illegally, and punish us if we don't, people find it hard to believe. I tell them our open border policy is deliberate to force the American people into the administration's policy of globalization. They find it difficult to believe that our political leaders would do such a thing.

Well if the administration would deliberately run up utility bills, and deliberately hurt business to force their addenda on us, why would they not open our borders for their own addenda as well?

12-11-2009, 09:28 AM
You know there's actually a way to stop this.


12-11-2009, 09:42 AM
So bottom line, Barack is saying Congress needs to pass a law "that takes the market into account" or he will issue a draconian executive order. I'd call his bluff and then impeach the SOB the next day. (Or we might have to wait until 2010, when we hopefully elect a Congress with some backbone.)

12-11-2009, 10:17 AM
So bottom line, Barack is saying Congress needs to pass a law "that takes the market into account" or he will issue a draconian executive order. I'd call his bluff and then impeach the SOB the next day. (Or we might have to wait until 2010, when we hopefully elect a Congress with some backbone.)

You don't get it. He doesn't have to issue any order. He can leave this up to the unconstitutional regulatory state. More laws get passed in the country by unelected bureaucrats then all of the laws passed by congress and all executive orders combined. These laws (rules really, but binding with the force of law) are published in the federal register (and now posted on the federal registry website) for a "notice and comment" period. That is the time to fight the rules by posted, emailing, faxing, writing your comments AGAINST them! The EPA must respond to any concern raised in the comments when they come out with their final rules or else those rules can be overturned in court. We need to send in comments demanding that the EPA fully invesitgation climategate before passing any additional rules. We can't afford to "wait and see". The regulatory state is perfect political cover for tyranny. These agencies aren't really accountable to anyone. The heads of some regulatory agencies can be removed by the president, but even in that case those underneath still have civil service protection. We could take by the presidency, house and senate and they could still pass this crap as long as people don't know how to fight them. I've posted a thread on this earlier. It unfortunately hasn't received much attention.


How do I know all of this? Because I took a (mandatory) law class last year in "Regulatory State". It's a brand new course at our school and isn't even being offered yet in many law schools. It's based off of the recognition that regulatory agencies make more "law" than congress and adjudicate more "cases" than the federal courts. I'm no expert. But I know enough to realize that Obama can get away with this if we only fight it the conventional way. (Writing congress. Trying to get good people elected. Ignoring the growing bureaucracy that more and more actually runs everything.)