Published: 11:57 AM 09/26/2011 | Updated: 1:31 PM 09/26/2011
The Environmental Protection Agency has said new greenhouse gas regulations, as proposed, may be “absurd” in application and “impossible to administer” by its self-imposed 2016 deadline. But the agency is still asking for taxpayers to shoulder the burden of up to 230,000 new bureaucrats — at a cost of $21 billion — to attempt to implement the rules.
The EPA aims to regulate greenhouse gas emissions through the Clean Air Act, even though the law doesn’t give the EPA explicit power to do so. The agency’s authority to move forward is being challenged in court by petitioners who argue that such a decision should be left for Congress to make.
The proposed regulations would set greenhouse gas emission thresholds above which businesses must file for an EPA permit and complete extra paperwork in order to continue operating. If the EPA wins its court battle and fully rolls out the greenhouse gas regulations, the number of businesses forced into this regulatory regime would grow tremendously — from approximately 14,000 now to as many as 6.1 million.
These new regulatory efforts are not likely to succeed, the EPA admits, but it has decided to move forward regardless. “While EPA acknowledges that come 2016, the administrative burdens may still be so great that compliance … may still be absurd or impossible to administer at that time, that does not mean that the Agency is not moving toward the statutory thresholds,” the EPA wrote in a September 16 court briefing.
The EPA is asking taxpayers to fund up to 230,000 new government workers to process all the extra paperwork, at an estimated cost of $21 billion. That cost does not include the economic impact of the regulations themselves.
“Hiring the 230,000 full-time employees necessary to produce the 1.4 billion work hours required to address the actual increase in permitting functions would result in an increase in Title V administration costs of $21 billion per year,” the EPA wrote in the court brief.
The petitioner suing the EPA is the Coalition for Responsible Regulation, a trade group reportedly linked to domestic chemical companies.
(This post was last modified: 09-27-2011 07:46 PM by SumOfAllFears.)
RE: EPA: Regulations would require 230,000 new employees, $21 billion (Obabba Jobs)
Quote:“While EPA acknowledges that come 2016, the administrative burdens may still be so great that compliance … may still be absurd or impossible to administer at that time, that does not mean that the Agency is not moving toward the statutory thresholds,” the EPA wrote in a September 16 court briefing.
In other words "We don't care if we're pissing money down the drain trying to do something that won't happen because it's not our money."
Published: 11:57 AM 09/26/2011 | Updated: 1:31 PM 09/26/2011
The Environmental Protection Agency has said new greenhouse gas regulations, as proposed, may be “absurd” in application and “impossible to administer” by its self-imposed 2016 deadline. But the agency is still asking for taxpayers to shoulder the burden of up to 230,000 new bureaucrats — at a cost of $21 billion — to attempt to implement the rules.
The EPA aims to regulate greenhouse gas emissions through the Clean Air Act, even though the law doesn’t give the EPA explicit power to do so. The agency’s authority to move forward is being challenged in court by petitioners who argue that such a decision should be left for Congress to make.
The proposed regulations would set greenhouse gas emission thresholds above which businesses must file for an EPA permit and complete extra paperwork in order to continue operating. If the EPA wins its court battle and fully rolls out the greenhouse gas regulations, the number of businesses forced into this regulatory regime would grow tremendously — from approximately 14,000 now to as many as 6.1 million.
These new regulatory efforts are not likely to succeed, the EPA admits, but it has decided to move forward regardless. “While EPA acknowledges that come 2016, the administrative burdens may still be so great that compliance … may still be absurd or impossible to administer at that time, that does not mean that the Agency is not moving toward the statutory thresholds,” the EPA wrote in a September 16 court briefing.
The EPA is asking taxpayers to fund up to 230,000 new government workers to process all the extra paperwork, at an estimated cost of $21 billion. That cost does not include the economic impact of the regulations themselves.
“Hiring the 230,000 full-time employees necessary to produce the 1.4 billion work hours required to address the actual increase in permitting functions would result in an increase in Title V administration costs of $21 billion per year,” the EPA wrote in the court brief.
The petitioner suing the EPA is the Coalition for Responsible Regulation, a trade group reportedly linked to domestic chemical companies.
RE: EPA: Regulations would require 230,000 new employees, $21 billion (Obabba Jobs)
From your article, first paragraph
the claim that the agency has asked for 230,000 new employees and $21 billion to implement its greenhouse gas rules is not true. That said, the truth is actually worse.
RE: EPA: Regulations would require 230,000 new employees, $21 billion (Obabba Jobs)
(09-28-2011 02:26 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: 21byn PER YEAR for 230,000 jobs??
wow
From the link in my earlier post. the claim that the agency has asked for 230,000 new employees and $21 billion to implement its greenhouse gas rules is not true.
Are you guys really that deficient in reading comprehension? Or are you just choosing to ignore what is really happening since it doesn't fit your agenda?
1. It's not $21 billion to hire 230,000 works, It's that much money AND that many workers to process all the permits.
2. The EPA has not requested that money.
3. They are not planning to hire 230,000 people.
4. They currently employ a whopping 17,000 people.
5. The EPA is ignoring the law as they feel that the costs far outweigh the benefits.
6. THE CLEAN AIR ACT WAS PASSED IN 1970, and then amended in 1977 and 1990.
7. in 2007 the Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gas emissions fall under the Clean Air Act so the EPA was then charged with regulating them.
8. Lastly, in your rush to pin something on Obama you blew it once again.
RE: EPA: Regulations would require 230,000 new employees, $21 billion (Obabba Jobs)
Note the 230K are for the ones need to keep all the paper work up for the the ones being regulated not the number of people at the EPA for processing all that paper work.
RE: EPA: Regulations would require 230,000 new employees, $21 billion (Obabba Jobs)
(09-28-2011 10:35 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote: From your article, first paragraph
the claim that the agency has asked for 230,000 new employees and $21 billion to implement its greenhouse gas rules is not true. That said, the truth is actually worse.
Interesting response, given that you created this thread with an article that's blatantly false, while Tom posted an article with the actual facts.
Your article states
-- "[T]he agency is still asking for taxpayers to shoulder the burden of up to 230,000 new bureaucrats — at a cost of $21 billion — to attempt to implement the rules", and
-- "The EPA is asking taxpayers to fund up to 230,000 new government workers to process all the extra paperwork, at an estimated cost of $21 billion."
Those claims are simply not true. The EPA is asking no such thing. They've "tailored" the rules so that enforcement requirements are much, much less. They have avoided the need to hire at anywhere approaching those levels by changing the threshold.
RE: EPA: Regulations would require 230,000 new employees, $21 billion (Obabba Jobs)
(09-28-2011 03:07 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote: Do you read what you type before you post it?
"1. It's not $21 billion to hire 230,000 works, It's that much money AND that many workers to process all the permits."
Sounds like they did ask for the money if I'm reading your comment correctly. I haven't read the article, I'm just pointing out your stupidity.
Because that's what the EPA estimates it will take to enforce the law if they chose to enforce it. What part of they have not requested that money or asked to hire those many workers do you not understand?
(This post was last modified: 09-28-2011 03:29 PM by Redwingtom.)
RE: EPA: Regulations would require 230,000 new employees, $21 billion (Obabba Jobs)
(09-28-2011 03:29 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:
(09-28-2011 03:07 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote: Do you read what you type before you post it?
"1. It's not $21 billion to hire 230,000 works, It's that much money AND that many workers to process all the permits."
Sounds like they did ask for the money if I'm reading your comment correctly. I haven't read the article, I'm just pointing out your stupidity.
Because that's what the EPA estimates it will take to enforce the law if they chose to enforce it. What part of they have not requested that money or asked to hire those many workers do you not understand?
Because if thats what it takes to enforce it then they will ask for it if they haven't already. And make no mistake about it they will "chose" to enforce it.
09-28-2011 03:47 PM
SumOfAllFears
Grim Reaper of Misguided Liberal Souls
Posts: 18,182
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation: 58
I Root For: America
Location:
RE: EPA: Regulations would require 230,000 new employees, $21 billion (Obabba Jobs)
(09-28-2011 07:21 PM)smn1256 Wrote:
(09-28-2011 03:02 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: 5. The EPA is ignoring the law as they feel that the costs far outweigh the benefits.
What an unbelievably insane statement; defendants across the country will now want to use that defense.
The arrogance of this administration is beyond anything that "we the people" expected when Prez Zero was elected.
So I'll put you down as in favor of the EPA adding 230,000 jobs and speding $21 billion. Sweet! Another convert to the big governemnt solves all problems wing of America.
RE: EPA: Regulations would require 230,000 new employees, $21 billion (Obabba Jobs)
(09-29-2011 09:40 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:
(09-28-2011 07:21 PM)smn1256 Wrote:
(09-28-2011 03:02 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: 5. The EPA is ignoring the law as they feel that the costs far outweigh the benefits.
What an unbelievably insane statement; defendants across the country will now want to use that defense.
The arrogance of this administration is beyond anything that "we the people" expected when Prez Zero was elected.
So I'll put you down as in favor of the EPA adding 230,000 jobs and speding $21 billion. Sweet! Another convert to the big governemnt solves all problems wing of America.
Wow, seriously? C'mon Tom. You're not stupid.
The EPA didn't ask for the money or the workers, but they apparently DID say that is what it would take to enforce the law. Rather than ask for the money, they have decided to NOT enforce the law. Is that REALLY what we want agencies of the government to do? To pick and choose laws to follow and not? Is that REALLY what we want Congress to do? To pass laws that the agencies aren't required to enforce.
This is PRECISELY what the anti-Kyoto etc people are talking about (as well as the border states and anti-un). You can pass a law, but if you don't intend to enforce it, then why waste the time and money? Isn't this exactly what happened with Iraq? Where exactly does that put the courts?? When Greenpeace sues Slumberger for violating the law, can Slumberger argue that the EPA didn't enforce it? I mean, an unenforced law is GENERALLY assumed to be moot, meaning not a law at all.
RE: EPA: Regulations would require 230,000 new employees, $21 billion (Obabba Jobs)
(09-29-2011 11:45 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:
(09-29-2011 09:40 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:
(09-28-2011 07:21 PM)smn1256 Wrote:
(09-28-2011 03:02 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: 5. The EPA is ignoring the law as they feel that the costs far outweigh the benefits.
What an unbelievably insane statement; defendants across the country will now want to use that defense.
The arrogance of this administration is beyond anything that "we the people" expected when Prez Zero was elected.
So I'll put you down as in favor of the EPA adding 230,000 jobs and speding $21 billion. Sweet! Another convert to the big governemnt solves all problems wing of America.
Wow, seriously? C'mon Tom. You're not stupid.
The EPA didn't ask for the money or the workers, but they apparently DID say that is what it would take to enforce the law. Rather than ask for the money, they have decided to NOT enforce the law. Is that REALLY what we want agencies of the government to do? To pick and choose laws to follow and not? Is that REALLY what we want Congress to do? To pass laws that the agencies aren't required to enforce.
This is PRECISELY what the anti-Kyoto etc people are talking about (as well as the border states and anti-un). You can pass a law, but if you don't intend to enforce it, then why waste the time and money? Isn't this exactly what happened with Iraq? Where exactly does that put the courts?? When Greenpeace sues Slumberger for violating the law, can Slumberger argue that the EPA didn't enforce it? I mean, an unenforced law is GENERALLY assumed to be moot, meaning not a law at all.
You did see the didn't you
But first off, in order to enforce the law the EPA would have to request those funds and staffing requirement from Congress. And we all know that there is no point in even wasting time in that. It would never happen.
I'm not trying to defend the EPA here in this thread. They shouldn't just ignore the law, but should be working to get it altered and maybe they are, I don't know. But the purpose of the false article and this thread was to somehow paint this as something negative on Obama and once again it isn't the case and makes the supposed braniacs, like my stalker and OwlXX/XX/XX, looks like fools in their silly responses without any research.
The Supreme Court case that started all this was from 2007. Yes, the current EPA head was appointed by Obama, but she was confirmed unanimously by the Senate. But I have yet to see any evidence that this current course of action has been directed by anybody in the White House.
/
EPA: Regulations would require 230,000 new employees, $21 billion (Obabba Jobs)
