The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has joined a growing list of business groups hoping to stop EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.
At issue is EPA’s “endangerment” finding, which cleared the way for the agency to use the powerful Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) and other global warming emissions.
The Chamber says EPA failed to consider the dire economic pain that its rules will inflict on industry, especially small businesses.
EPA already requires about 13,000 of the largest CO2 emitters to track and report their greenhouse gas emissions.
This spring, the agency intends to issue final rules that will limit CO2 tailpipe emissions from cars and trucks, large facilities, and power plants. EPA insists it will only target the very largest facilities, those releasing more than 25,000 tons a year of greenhouse gases.
Oddly enough, the Chamber’s not questioning the science behind global warming. It’s attacking EPA on procedural issues.
Steven Law, the Chamber’s general counsel, says his group “strongly supports efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere, but we believe there’s a right way and a wrong way to achieve that goal.”
The right way to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, Law says, is for Congress to develop “bipartisan legislation that promotes new technologies, emphasizes efficiency, ensures affordable energy for families and businesses and defends American jobs.”
The Chamber also says this approach should be based on “a comprehensive international agreement” that forces all countries to limit CO2 emissions, “which the Chamber has been actively working toward.”
BusinessBrief.com delivers the latest business news once a week to the inboxes of over 180,000 executives.
Click here to sign up and start your FREE subscription to BusinessBrief!
advertisement
Tags: global warming, greenhouse gas regulation
February 24th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
The EPA along with other Government agencies are just pricing us out of the World market. They cost us Tax payers billion of dollar a year with their autocrat attitude. Most of their finding are without finding
February 24th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
The Chamber should attack on the real merits, the lack of climate change caused by CO2 emissions. Even if we could force the whole world to make such silly changes, that would only mean more people would suffer the economic consequences of such stupidity.
There is no reason to believe the CO2 released by human endeavors will have any noticeable effect on climate change. The EPA’s new power is based on politics, not on science.
February 24th, 2010 at 3:33 pm
The Chamber of Commerce should be supporting EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. The EPA is acting within its designated authority to protect the environment in the limited ways it can. Strict EPA regulation is necessary to provide the appropriate conditions for restructuring the economy around a clean energy infrastructure. The international community, federal/state legislators, and The Chamber of Commerce can then work to promote new technologies, emphasize efficiency, ensure affordable energy for families and businesses and defends American jobs. Without a serious incentive, change will come too late.
February 24th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
This is entertainment at its finest:
“Oddly enough, the Chamber’s not questioning the science behind global warming. ” Why oddly? Surely the combination of scientific evidence and a bit of looking out a window ought to convince folks there is some sort of climatic intemperance going on. A few thousand years ago, with the establishment of villages I’m sure there was some bell ringer touting no worries about crapping upstream – “it’s a big river, don’t mind the brown stuff…”
Your editorial slip is showing.
…. “The right way to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, Law says, is for Congress to develop “bipartisan legislation that promotes new technologies, emphasizes efficiency, ensures affordable energy for families and businesses and defends American jobs.” ”
If that isn’t a prescription for “let’s do nothing” delivered under the guise of reason, I’ve never seen one. If the EPA has the power, they better use it as fast as they can before someone finds a way to deprive them of it. And that is advice I would offer to anyone from Wall Street to Skid Row.
February 24th, 2010 at 5:29 pm
I constantly hear the Chamber and some members complain about taxes and regulations being the downfall of small business and the economy as a whole. I can tell you from experience and talking with many other small business owners that taxes in general are a back burner issue and have minimal affect on day to day operations as well as hiring decisions. The bigger issues are access to capital for improvements and expansion, restrictions on small businesses ability to compete on a level for Federal contracts, bundling of services and product contracts so that small businesses are unable to realistically compete for business and so much more. Yes, the EPA regulations can be difficult and expensive to follow but we also must strike a balance in regulation and protecting the environment. Instead of putting so much effort into things that affect a relatively few truely small businesses, why doesn’t the Chamber champion small businesses and their needs?
February 25th, 2010 at 8:28 am
The problem is that the EPA does not really have the power. The “endangerment” finding required the most tortuous rationalizations to classify CO2 as a pollutant, given that it is essential to life on earth. The agency is clearly overstepping their mandate under the Clean Air Act. The supposed effects predicted for “climate change”, even if they were to come to pass, have nothing to do with pollution, health, toxicity or anything else covered by the act. There is no reason to question the science because that is not the issue.
California has global warming legislation, which is one of the most inane exercises in futility I have ever witnessed, and would be laughable had it not become so destructive to the state’s already wheezing economy. If the whole US were to jump on board it would be only marginally less futile, but even more destructive, especially with respect to the developing world who would have nothing to do with the Copenhagen agenda, so the Chamber is absolutely right to oppose this executive overreach on economic grounds. Yet if autoflagellation is something the US really really wants to pursue, it must be a decision taken by Congress. It is too important to be snuck in under the table by bureaucratic legerdemain.
February 25th, 2010 at 10:01 am
I love to read not only articles such as this but also the bloggers – very educated and articulate in each of these comments – the fact still remains that the United States emission numbers have dropped drastically since the conception of the regulations and are still continuing to drop BUT the rest of the world is not to par and when our country is being made sole proprietor of this problem – it is completely wrong. And for the United States to fund $ other countries for their pollution in the name that we are so sorry we (the United States) have caused your (other countries) pollution and they (other countries) not wanting to claim it, and change it, is very disheartening. And then government or any branch their of, pushing more and more on the small business, will eventually suck the life out of what we consider the strength of our country. If you only sat down in one day and added all the tax’s that we incur through out a normal day and then added all the taxes on a bill let’s say a light bill and even your cell phone bill – add them up, and tell me that you love paying all of this, and then add some more from what is taken out of your check and tell me you love paying them, then I will send you my address so you can include some of that $ to me – please. Because I am becoming tax, insurance, and retirement poor.
When we start to stick to the facts then and only then can we find a solution to a problem.
February 25th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
I always enjoy reading what people write who do not understand the consequences of poisoning our environment. These people are obviously out of touch with reality. The fact that the Chamber of Commerce does not argue with global warming theories is a real step forward. I have a degree in biochemistry, and I am aware that the chemistry of the oceans and of our atmosphere are changing. Where do people think that all of the waste products formed by 6 billion people, world wide, is going? AS the poplulation continues to increase, the amount of pollutants going into the atmosphere is going to grow exponentially.
The oceans pH has changed by .1, becoming more acidic due to the amount of CO2 that the ocean has absorbed. CO2 + H2O produces carbonic acid. How much CO2 does it take to make enough carbonic acid to change the pH of the oceans of earth? A large amount is the answer. A more acidic ocean means problems for marine life, crustaceans will have difficulty forming shells, and coral reefs will disappear (If you read national geographic, you will know that the coral reefs are already under attack by more acidic water)
So, the question is, are the nay sayers of global warming willing to risk the lives of their grand children and the future of this world for man kind?
Think about it…
February 25th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Texas has filed suit against the EPA on this very subject. The EPA did not do the research but instead used the now famous fudged data of the IPCC. The basic concept behind much of the IPCC data is wealth transfer to “deserving” countries under the guise of climate control. There is little real science behind the IPCC’s politically driven agenda. Real pollution is one thing we need to take seriously, global warming/climate change fallacies should be delegated to the trash heap where they belong.
February 26th, 2010 at 4:58 pm
It reminds of the days when big business said that cigarrettes were not bad for you along with leaded gasoline…Now there biggest buyers are 3rd world countries…Money wouldn’t do much good if your dead
February 26th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Hey, let’s not stop with co2! Everyone seems to be ignoring the most highly corrosive toxin in our atmosphere! It puts at risk countless endangered anaerobic species, and is solely responsible for the vast majority of all corrosion on the planet! In fact it is the cause of the need for antioxidant food additives, millions of gallons of special coatings, and a similar number of wasted man-hours employed in anti-corrosive treatments and corrosion removal. This toxin, of course, is oxygen. EPA, rid us of this curse!
February 26th, 2010 at 6:40 pm
I know it sounds like crazy-talk, but I’m all for the EPA actually protecting the environment. ANd by the way, I’m a small business owner. It looks like a corrosive toxin is actual the Chamber of Commerce.
March 26th, 2010 at 11:50 am
CO2 is not a poison, it’s a part of the world that coexists with H2O. The EPA should stick to what it was originally created for and get out of the political arena. But that would be hard, when Obamadolf has snuck in all his lilttle commie friends in every orifice he could find. Read The Enemy Within by Michael Savage. Open your eyes.
March 26th, 2010 at 3:48 pm
I know that I am old and the last time I took a Science class – oxygen (CO 2) is what animals including us human beings need to like……………breathe….. and if I remember correctly we expel carbon monoxide which in turn the plants (trees, shrubs, bushes, grass) in a way breathe in and convert to oxygen (CO 2) it is a beautiful cycle……………I just would like to know what the h—l are they teaching in school – because it looks like they are trading a right for a wrong and a wrong for a right, I read that some where.
If we want to complain about the destruction of our earth that has been given to us for our purpose, why don’t we do something about those that are killing our whales in the name of study when we know for a fact that they are doing it for commercialization of consumption (Japan), the seal trade, the Ivory (Elephant tusk’s) black market, the Gorillas and the Rhinos Tusk’s for supposedly medical purpose’s, I suppose that they haven’t heard of Viagra. How about the destruction of the Rain Forest in South America. You know I am with the EPA also – I think we should have some one watching out for our environment – but it’s like having all these Czars!
I am with Sheila. Thanks,
March 26th, 2010 at 8:03 pm
Thanks, Natalie. I believe the EPA has a purpose and a job to do. As we all know, though, we need to draw a line in the sand for how much we need or want the government to do for us. I for one don’t need a babysitter.
So we all need to keep our eyes and ears open and stop the encroachers in their tracks.