Obama Notices Which Way The Wind Is Blowing
A politician's integrity is usually only as strong as his poll numbers. (See bit I italicized below.)
Deborah Solomon and Tennille Tracy write in the WSJ that the President has asked the EPA to withdraw their proposed ozone rule:
President Barack Obama, citing the struggling economy, asked the Environmental Protection Agency on Friday to withdraw an air-quality rule that Republicans and business groups said would cost millions of jobs.The surprise move--coming on the same day as a dismal unemployment report--reflected the energy industry's importance as a rare bright spot in adding U.S. jobs. The tighter standards for smog-forming ozone could have forced states and cities to limit some oil-and-gas projects.
In making the move, the White House clearly judged that it had more to lose from industry and Republican criticism than it had to gain from environmental groups who support the rule.
The EPA's January 2010 proposal, to tighten air-quality standards to a level below that adopted under President George W. Bush and even further below what most states now adhere to, has been cited for months by industry groups and lawmakers as "regulatory overreach" that they say is undercutting the economic recovery. Republican presidential candidates have routinely criticized the EPA in stump speeches.
Mr. Obama said in a statement that he remains committed to public health and clean air, but he added, "I have continued to underscore the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty, particularly as our economy continues to recover."
Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, said the move suggests the White House "is becoming more sensitive to the uncertainty created by their heavy regulatory hand....They are beginning to understand that the regulatory burden does more to chill job creation than just about anything else out there."
more to lose from industry and Republican criticism than it had to gain from environmental groups ...
I have to wonder, Texas(for one) reacted to the thought of losing power plants during a very nasty hot spell with thoughts of tar, feathers and ropes; I wonder if those citizens are classed as 'industry' or 'Republican'.
Do Obama & Co. even have a category for 'pissed-off citizens who've had enough'?
Firehand at September 3, 2011 1:21 PM
If you're not pissed off yet, this should help you to the tipping point:
California Dream Act
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/09/03/BA621KVPLM.DTL
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at September 3, 2011 3:27 PM
The thing is, I'm all for higher air quality, and less air pollution. But I'm definitely not for the government mandating it.
Lots of people are for "natural and organic foods," and whole foods is doing fantastic, BEFORE massive regulations on what individuals are allowed to feed their own families. (With Mrs. Obama's interest in childhood obesity, I'm sure it's coming)
When people demand cleaner air, less ozone depletion, anything else green, the market will follow where the money leads. Until then, people will just find ways to get around the legislation.
Jazzhands at September 3, 2011 6:43 PM
This isn't entirely due to Republican pressure. The EPA has gotten out of control, to the degree that even Progressives are noticing. EPA restrictions have been a big factor impeding the green jobs initiative and the development of green infrastructure. The agency's position is basically that it should have purview over any activity that may alter local ecosystems and the environment. Their CO2 regs do that same at a national level. There are elements within the EPA that seem intent on returning us to the year zero.
mr. holmes at September 3, 2011 8:28 PM
Here's one you have to love. The greenies are fighting the greenies over over killing birds on wind farms.
Basically they went through and put all these nice windmills up for green energy. Now the windmills are killing birds at a high rate.
Can you get any more irony out of this?
Jim P. at September 3, 2011 10:53 PM
Despite being of a libertarian bent, I get that government imposed pollution standards levels the playing field, and prevents the defector problem that is the bane of having a libertarian bent.
Still, it should be bloody obvious that past some not too hard to define point, further decreases in some pollutant yield greatly diminished results.
The EPA proves that every day.
Jeff Guinn (aka Hey Skipper) at September 4, 2011 12:37 AM
Jazzhands,
I like free market solutions, but they often take a long time too develop. Think about air pollution (real air pollution, not this CO2 crap) or industrial waste.
Where was the market solution when the Cuyahoga river caught on fire? Where was it when LAke Erie was on the verge of death.
Sorry Jazzhands, government had to mandate it. Industry's failure to do the Hayekian thing and self-regulate was taking us to a very bad place.
EPA and other regulatory agencies may have now gone too far, but please read a little history.
Tony K at September 4, 2011 8:42 AM
EPA and other regulatory agencies may have now gone too far, but please read a little history.
If they weren't trying to overstep their bounds why would they have to specifically exempt milk. The telling thing to me is this:
Why would they have to delay the compliance requirements several times if they weren't beyond their expected bounds?
Jim P. at September 4, 2011 4:36 PM
"I have continued to underscore the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty, particularly as our economy continues to recover."
Wow. Just wow. Is he trying to set a new record for number of lies within one sentence?
Lobster at September 5, 2011 6:46 PM
Leave a comment