A Daily Caller story citing an EPA estimate that it would require an additional 230,000 bureaucrats at a cost of $21 billion to regulate greenhouse gases is getting quite a bit of play (including on NRO). But the Daily Caller flubbed the story. The EPA is not “asking for taxpayers to shoulder” this burden, as the Daily Caller story claims. Rather, the EPA is pointing out applying the plain text of the Clean Air Act to greenhouse gas emissions would require this result — and the EPA is correct on this point. The EPA’s response is not to confess that trying to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act is absurd, however. Instead the EPA is seeking to rewrite the statute by administrative fiat. This, and not the outrageous cost estimates, are where EPA goes wrong.
The only real solution is legislative action to correct the Supreme Court’s erroneous conclusion in Massachusetts v. EPA that the Clean Air Act covers greenhouse gases in the first place. Until this decision is overturned or the law is amended, however, over one million additional facilities are subject to the Act’s permitting requirements, and processing that number of permits would, in fact, require at least a ten-fold increase in EPA personnel, and it is neither fair nor accurate to attack the EPA for pointing this out. There are many things worth attacking the EPA for, but this isn’t one of them. If blame lies anywhere, it’s with the justices on the Supreme Court whose decision led to this result.
I have more to say on this at the VC. I also provide background on this regulatory mess in this article from the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy.
pointing this absurd result out is hardly attacking the EPA ...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot that there is anything wrong with attacking the EPA.
On principle, if nothing else.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm of the mind that any attack on the EPA, true, false or in between is fair. If rumors were spreading that the EPA was going house to house and steal the first-born, I wouldn't lift a finger to set the record straight–at least not until the agency was abolished.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLet me see if I have this straight. The EPA is not for 230K more staff or $21B, it's just saying it 230K more staff or $21B if it is to apply the clean air act to greenhouse gas emissions...which is what the EPA has indicated a willingness to do without going through congress.
Not seeing the significance of the distinction here. We're still out $21B.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusehmmm... the brackets I used for emphasis resulted in dropping some words in there. Should read: The EPA is not ASKING for 230K more staff or $21B, it's just saying it NEEDS 230K more staff or $21B ....
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe $21B is really not the problem. Well it is, but it's chump change in Obama's stimulus couch. The problem is the burden that swarm of 230,000 being a giant burden on businesses and energy production.
Our forefathers knew better how to handle these situations. When King George "erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their substance", our forefathers didn't say to those 18th century bureaucrats "It's not really your fault you were sent here by ole KG, we won't hold it against you."
No, they broke out the tar and feathers. I think it's perfectly reasonable to blame the EPA AND the politicians that drive them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is a good write-up of the EPA court case: External Link
and the relevent absurdities--the implication of 230,000 regulators necessary--rather than any request for same.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs with most of EPA's regulations, the cost of enacting and enforcing them will probably be foisted upon the States.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"The only real solution is legislative action to correct the Supreme Court’s erroneous conclusion in Massachusetts v. EPA "
A good start but the only real, long-term solution is to eliminate the EPA. Water and air pollution that violate life and property rights starts in a particular state. At most, the Federal government could provide some interstate regulation, using the Commerce Clause as justification. Even that should be minimal.
The EPA, along with every other modern Administrative state agency, has shown it simply can't implement justice nor protect human life. Eliminating it would go a long way toward purging Progressives from the Federal government.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse