Environmental extremists in the Obama administration are hurting Virginia’s economy and energy
By JR Hoeft | Monday, December 6th, 2010 | Policy
In the 1984 movie “Ghostbusters”, an overzealous junior administrator from the Environmental Protection Agency named Walter Peck takes brash action against the paranormal bunch because he didn’t understand the environmental impact of their “containment grid” for the ghosts.
While the Commonwealth of Virginia is certainly not picking up “slimers” and free-floating apparitions and storing them in the basement of the State Capitol (although the case can be made that maybe they should), the EPA and Obama Administration seem to be taking equally brash steps towards punishing the people of Virginia with their recent energy policies.
Whether it’s cap-and-trade, climate and emissions policy, or extending the current ban on offshore oil and natural gas exploration, it seems that extreme liberal progressives have once again reasserted themselves in directing environmental policy, all the while undermining the delicate balance between truly protecting the environment and promoting the conditions necessary for energy independence and economic prosperity.
Cap and trade, which is legislatively dorment, but still instructive at understanding what the administration hopes to do with energy, seeks to limit the total number of emissions permitted in the United States (cap), while creating a market for those who do emit to “trade” their allowable CO2 credits with others – effectively giving some polluters the license to emit more than they should, while at the same time stifling the economy by enacting arbitrary restrictions.
What this specifically means to Virginia is double-trouble: not only is the coal industry effectively a target because CO2 is a product of its use as an energy source, but the cost associated with this plan by stifling job creation, increasing the tax burden, and passing on the higher cost of energy onto the consumer in the midst of a recession is a terrible idea.
One of the primary authors of this legislation – Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA9) – learned how voters felt about this plan in November by rewarding him with a one-way ticket out of Washington.
Thankfully, the U.S. Senate is not planning on considering cap-and-trade this Congress, but the mere fact that it passed the House of Representatives on partisan lines, shows what environmentalists are capable of when given the reins of power.
So, if they can’t do it legislatively, they’ll do it through the EPA.
Under the guise of the Clean Air Act, the EPA, through executive fiat – and based largely on data found from a United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UNIPCC) – will be implementing new rules Jan. 2, 2011 that take an aggressive approach to regulating greenhouse gas emissions.
Regulation of as many as six million American industrial facilities, power plants, hospitals, small businesses and commercial establishments, known as “stationary sources”, and associated unfunded mandates on the states, will go into effect next year based largely on data that is suspect at best.
Under the new rules, the EPA has proposed that some states be required to change their state implementation plan (SIP) to ensure GHG emissions are accounted for in the permitting of large new or expanded facilities, and to establish a federal implementation plan to apply to states that do not adopt such a SIP. These rules could impose a significant burden on the U.S. economy, requiring expensive investments in stationary sources by businesses across the country, diverting capital that might otherwise create jobs and assist us in our economic recovery.
Back in September, U.S. Sens. Jim Webb and Mark Warner had a chance to block this nonsense by voting against a so-called “endangerment finding” – which supports the EPA’s finding that greenhouse gases are hazardous to human health and permits the EPA to regulate the heck out of coal and greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act – but the senators demurred and voted to support the EPA’s claims.
The U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee said in a September 2010 report that was ignored by our two senators “[T]hese rules threaten the economic viability of America’s manufacturing base and hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs. Moreover, these rules will bring little, if any, public health or environmental benefits. As Americans suffer through a jobless recovery, EPA is pursuing policies that exacerbate our economic problems and do not improve the environment.”
This caution was echoed recently by 15 trade associations, led by the American Petroleum Institute which wrote:
“EPA’s greenhouse gas rules will stifle job growth…and further burden state budgets already hampered by slow revenue growth and increased costs. . .We can expect a virtual freeze on new construction of manufacturing facilities or energy efficiency modifications to existing facilities. That result will harm not only our industries but those that are dependent on construction and the clean energy sector.”
Meanwhile, in the recent debate over funding the government (which includes the EPA) in the omnibus spending bill, Republican members attempted to “defund” the EPA for the next year over this unilateral approach to regulation. The vote on the bill was kicked down the road to December 18 – so there’s still time to contact your congressman and tell them to defund the EPA over this gross expansion of federal power.
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has already once attempted to stand up to the EPA, but had his hearing rejected. This doesn’t mean he intends to stop.
“We are all for blocking the EPA’s effort to regulate greenhouse gas emissions by denying EPA the funding for implementing its new rules,” said Brian Gottstein of the Attorney General’s office. “The EPA is relying heavily on the data from the discredited and suspect UN IPCC report to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as dangerous pollutants. The costs of such regulation in terms of lost jobs due to companies shutting down or moving overseas to avoid costly or prohibitive regulations, higher energy bills, and higher prices on practically every manufactured or transported good, will be astronomical. If such monumental power is given to the EPA, it should be using the best data possible to make its determinations about CO2’s effect on the environment. With the revelations of Climategate and the retractions of some of the scientists who participated in the IPCC report, clearly the data the EPA is relying on is at least suspect, if not outright wrong.”
If that’s where the government’s effort to over-regulate and over-burden the consumer on environmental matters stopped, that would be bad enough. But it’s not.
Last week, the Obama administration announced that exploration for oil and natural gas off the coast of Virginia and other places nationwide would not occur between 2012 and 2017. This unilateral decision – which even Senators Webb and Warner will write a strongly worded letter to the president about – has the potential to cost Virginia thousands of jobs, billions of dollars of revenue, and not take us any closer towards energy independence.
But the administration is also acting a bit like its bipolar.
Not only did the administration favor oil and natural gas exploration before the Deepwater Horizon accident earlier this year, but then there’s this from the Washington Post:
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar says his department wants to use its “critical resources” to supervise areas in which rigs already are operating. One translation: The administration won’t waste time scoping off the Gulf Coast of Florida as long as Congress maintains its own ban on drilling there. But that doesn’t explain the reversal for the Atlantic Coast. Both Democratic and Republican governors of Virginia have expressed support for careful exploration.
So what message is the administration sending here? It’s a bit inconsistent as even the Post can see. There’s no reason exploration lease sales can’t go forward in the next period of 2012-2017. It seems that the administration just has a vendetta against Virgnia.
[P]olicy considerations haven’t changed. America will require oil for years, and a lot of it will come from undersea wells – off Brazil, Nigeria and Azerbaijan if not the United States. Mr. Obama’s about-face may make some Americans feel better, but it’s unlikely to be a net plus for energy independence or the global environment.
Towards the end of “Ghostbusters”, there’s a great scene in the New York City mayor’s office where Dr. Peter Venkman makes his case to ply their trade and rid the city of spooks, against the recommendations of the EPA:
“ If I’m wrong, nothing happens! We go to jail – peacefully, quietly. We’ll enjoy it! But if I’m *right*, and we *can* stop this thing… Lenny, you will have saved the lives of millions of registered voters.”
While Governor Bob McDonnell, Attorney General Cuccinelli, federal Republicans, and others are certainly not Ghostbusters, and opposing the federal government’s mandates won’t send him to jail (we hope), if our leadership is able to stand-up to and reverse the ever-increasing federal intrusion on the state’s ability to enact rational energy policy, they, too, will have saved billions of dollars for millions of registered voters – certainly something they’ll want to keep in mind for future electoral prospects.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Conservative to the core; liberal with his opinion! J.R. has been involved in politics for over a decade and has worked on several campaigns in Hampton Roads. He has served on the Executive Committee of the Republican Party of Chesapeake and the Central Committee of the Republican Party of Virginia. He is also the director of “Blogs United” in Virginia. E-mail J.R.. Follow J.R. on Twitter.
Comments
16 Responses to "Environmental extremists in the Obama administration are hurting Virginia’s economy and energy"
JR- Before going all rah rah on the goverhor, you might not that his recently released plan to clean up the Bay includes a form of cap and trade.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Bearing Drift, Save US Energy Jobs. Save US Energy Jobs said: Great read! @BearingDrift "Environmental extremists in the Obama Admin are hurting Virginia’s #economy and #energy" http://bit.ly/eBZSsk [...]
Well, you can’t win ‘em all. I haven’t seen his plan, so I can’t comment. However, the science surrounding the clean up of the bay is sound – we know it’s necessary. Climate change? Jury’s still out.
We can see the damage clearly in the bay. It’s like seeing spilled milk in the kitchen – you just don’t leave it there, you have to do something about it.
I’m just not convinced putting our economy on the line and sacrifice our national energy independence because of specious scientific data is the correct approach.
The jury is out on climate change? Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say the jury is out on the CAUSE of climate change? Pretty hard to deny it is happening, the debate is really about are we causing it or is it a natural phenomenon.
In addition, the Obama Administration wants us to take additional measures on cleaning the James River watershed. The difference between the Virginia and Federal standards is small enough that you can’t accurately measure the difference in testing, but Obama wants us to spend tens of millions to meet it anyway.
Using the term Environmental Extremist is a misnomer.. The extremists you wrote about are not pro environment, they merely expolit environmental responsibility which is a non partisan issue.. A better term might be Neo Environmental Extremist.
“…diverting capital that might otherwise create jobs and assist us in our economic recovery.”
Um…divertying it to where exactly?
“Not only did the administration favor oil and natural gas exploration before the Deepwater Horizon accident earlier this year…”
And why is this surprising or were you on another planet this summer?
The capital is diverted to pay for the costs associated with the new environmental regulations vice job creation, r&d, etc.
And, no, I don’t thing accident justifies the knee-jerk reaction from the Obama administration. Nor do a great many of our leaders in Virginia find it justifiable – an actual bi-partisan consensus for a change.
Ghostbusters II may actually be a more apt (if strange) metaphor here. In the sequel, the politicians in the establishment wish to silence the experts who study the issue as to the possibility of there being the “River of Ooze” beneath the city by attacking their credibility and throwing them in the looney bin. It is only after the damage is incurred and the evidence is overwhelming that the politicians turn to and trust the experts.
That is a Hollywood movie (and not a very good one at that). This is reality. Ironically your quote from the original movie applies to global warming as well:
“If I’m wrong, nothing happens! We go to jail – peacefully, quietly. We’ll enjoy it! But if I’m *right*, and we *can* stop this thing… Lenny, you will have saved the lives of millions of registered voters.”
In this case, if the experts are wrong, however, implementing policies designed to reverse or slow down global warming will also have the very real benefit of reducing and ultimately eliminating our dependence on fossil fuels (foreign and domestic – there is, btw, no real distinction) – this would be very good news for our economy, our security, and our economy. Hey, R’s, you would think you could take the position that 2 out of 3 ain’t bad.
Follow me here…what are these “costs associated with the new environmental regulations” spent on?
“And, no, I don’t thing accident justifies the knee-jerk reaction from the Obama administration.”
The ACCIDENT itself does not justify a continued ban. What was demonstrated by the accident (i.e., the potential damage from a similar accident on the east coast) is what justifies the ban. Here is a question for you. Do you think that another accident will not happen? Can you predict where is WILL happen? Do you KNOW what caused the BP accident (root cause)? Do you know what sort of devastation would have occurred to the economy if this accident had occurred off the Mid-Atlantic Coast – IN the Gulf Stream? Consider, honestly for once, all these questions and then tell me with a straight face that you are surprised that the Obama administration (or any administration) might change their stance on offshore drilling in the Mid-Atlantic. It is NOT an extremist position at all. It is VERY reasonable. To NOT consider extending the ban – THAT would have been unreasonable.
Eric, I’m keenly aware that there are no certainties in life, so, I cannot answer your questions with the 100%, zero-defect, absolutism you so require.
That being said, I also know that what happened with DWH was, as is often the case, a series of errors that led to a tragedy. At any point in the series, if someone had changed course, the tragedy is likely prevented.
That also being said, today’s technology in the oil and natural gas industry is some of the finest engineering out there. Whether it’s their safety mechanisms or ability to seek and find the reservoirs in an efficient and minimially invasive manner to the environment, the industry is constantly seeking ways to improve.
This is a simple risk management decision: do the benefits outweigh the costs and how do you mitigate the risk?
That being said – these are some great conversations and discussions. I love the fact that folks who do not agree with threads come on Bearing Drift to have an honest and thoughtful discussion. That doesn’t happen on a lot of blogs.
“…I cannot answer your questions with the 100%, zero-defect, absolutism you so require.”
I am not the one requiring zero-defect absolutism. It is the ramifications of another accident of this magnitude happening off the coast of the Mid-Atlantic that demands these sort of assurances. At least, perhaps, we can agree that it would have been pre-mature to APPROVE the drilling plans before we even have a thorough understanding of the cause(s) of the last accident? I will concede that (if it is even allowed statutorially) it might have been better to extend the moratorium for say 2-4 years instead of 7 but it would have been irresponsible to just approve it as things stand right now.
To cut to the chase on the greenhouse gas issue above, the dollars spent on reducing greenhouse gas emissions are not lost to the economy. They generate jobs in their own right and much of the cost goes to equipment upgrades and capital improvements. Those are not lost jobs. One can debate the net benefit and job creation efficiencies but to just write them off as diverted capital that might OTHERWISE have created jobs is not a fair assessment.
Anyone who doesn’t think these environmental issues are important is either refusing to see reality or just plain stupid. Why doesn’t Hoeft take a trip to Memphis, TN and enjoy a leisurely swim in the Mississippi River? That river is a prime example of what happens without adequate regulations.
We need much stricter regulations than we have for the same reason we need laws to regulate behavior of the average human: integrity. Many people and businesses don’t act with integrity. Why spend extra money to properly dispose of waste when they can dump it where they shouldn’t?
Humans create vast environmental impact. When you consider the tremendous damage to the earth by drilling for fossil fuels that are yesterday’s technologies anyway, the damage multiplies to incredible proportion. Global warming is real and it is greatly hastened–if not caused–by human involvement. I take my information on this from the unbiased scientific community, not from Fox News. It costs much more in the long run to fix a poisoned environment than it does to make sure businesses stop polluting. Who’s going to pay to fix polluted waters, erosion, air quality and human illness from environmental toxins a few years down the road?
Blogs like this one really confirm my suspicion that those who oppose strict environmental regulations are idiots.
I have heard a lot of horrible things about the Cypress Creek Power Plant recently and want to say that I believe this is a good source of jobs and infrastructure to a region that needs it badly. The data from the report by the CBF was false and was on old data and not a atually scientific research. Go ODEC!
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.