Posted on 04/19/2015 6:49:19 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
As debate intensifies around the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed carbon dioxide rule, EPA’s supporters are pushing back against claims that the economic costs of the rule outweigh the climate benefits.
For instance, in a recent opinion piece for the Arizona Republic, University of Arizona law professor Kris Mayes claims that a widely cited study by NERA Economic Consulting fails to account for “energy efficiency investments that save money for consumers.”
This criticism of NERA is unfounded. In fact, as NERA and others explain, it is EPA who has failed to accurately calculate energy efficiency and other impacts, resulting in dramatically underestimated costs. Even the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) has criticized EPA for using data that is more than two decades old, resulting in cost-benefit analyses that are “limited in their usefulness.” Furthermore, EPA’s analysis of energy efficiency is flawed because the agency assumes that even though energy efficiency measures help people, the only way people will implement these measures is if EPA mandates them through regulation.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
When will they finish the , “Save The Environment Personnel Termination Chamber” , before Obama’s Term ends ?
Bump
The EPA is filled with envirowhackos who don’t give a damned about what the people costs is to their agenda. They value the narrow leaf shitweed and the speckle wing snot fly over people.
If they really wanted to ‘save’ the planet, there would be a 1000% tariff on goods from China and India.
If not an outright ban.....
But, hey, that’s just me.
Isn’t there a multi-billion dollar bureaucracy called the “General Accounting Office” that’s supposed to keep the various Executive Branch agencies from reporting fantasy numbers to describe the costs and benefits of their various crappola programs?
"How EPA Cooks Books to Downplay Costs"
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
While we need to take care of the environment, we also need to add this issue to the list of reasons that the 17th Amendment (17A) should never have been ratified. (More about 17A later.)
Note that the Supreme Court has clarified that Congress is prohibited from laying taxes in the name of state power issues, essentially any issue which Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
And since the states have never delegated to Congress, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for environmental protection purposes, the EPA’s costs should actually be zero.
Getting back to the 17th Amendment, the Founding States had intended for senators to protect their states by killing House bills which not only steal state powers, but also steal state revenues associated with those powers.
But also consider that if the Senate thinks that an unconstitutional appropriations bill is actually a good idea, then the Senate has the following option. The Senate can rally Congress to propose an appropriate amendment to the Constitution to the states which would grant the feds the specific power to regulate and appropriate funds for an issue. And if the states agree with the Senate that the proposed amendment is a good idea then the states can ratify it, the federal government then having the new constitutional authority that it needs to address the issue, and also commend their senators for a job well done.
On the other hand, the problem with the popularly elected Senate is this. Low-information voters go home after voting for their favorite federal senators and watch football, oblivious to the major problem that their corrupt senators are working in cahoots with the corrupt House to pass unconstitutional appropriations bills like the ones that fund the EPA.
The 17th Amendment needs to disappear.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.