Yesterday I heard this NPR interview with the new EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson. There's no doubt about her vision for government's role.
-- First she glosses over the immense costs of her decision to regulate CO2 as a pollutant. The Clean Air Act, which EPA is using as the legal vehicle to implement these CO2 limits, is entirely inappropriate. That Act is designed to address air quality on a regional basis--when, say, carbon monoxide levels in LA are at unsafe levels, the government is allowed to step in to limit sources of CO, until the level are reduced to safe levels in that area. So, how can this possibly work with CO2? Putting aside the whole (huge) issue of whether CO2 is a health threat, the CO2 levels are the result of worldwide CO2 production (natural and manmade). EPA restrictions on US CO2 output will not have any impact on Chinese or Russian CO2 emissions, so I guess the more they put out, the higher the levels will go and the more the EPA will issue fines to ranchers and everyone else in the US who produces CO2. "You boys cut that out! Billy, if you throw another mudball I'm going to spank your brother!"
-- At about 3:05 in the intervew she starts into the auto industry. (Paraphrased) "We need a single national roadmap . . . that tells automakers what type of cars that they need to building for the American people". Really. I thought the American people got to communicate this directly to the automakers through their purchasing decisions. I don't think the American people want the government taking away their voice in this issue. The (sympathetic) NPR interviewer asks if that's really the government's proper role, "it doesn't sound like free enterprise." EPA Adminstrator Jackson's response has to be heard to be believed.
At least no one can claim to be surprised about where we are heading.
-- First she glosses over the immense costs of her decision to regulate CO2 as a pollutant. The Clean Air Act, which EPA is using as the legal vehicle to implement these CO2 limits, is entirely inappropriate. That Act is designed to address air quality on a regional basis--when, say, carbon monoxide levels in LA are at unsafe levels, the government is allowed to step in to limit sources of CO, until the level are reduced to safe levels in that area. So, how can this possibly work with CO2? Putting aside the whole (huge) issue of whether CO2 is a health threat, the CO2 levels are the result of worldwide CO2 production (natural and manmade). EPA restrictions on US CO2 output will not have any impact on Chinese or Russian CO2 emissions, so I guess the more they put out, the higher the levels will go and the more the EPA will issue fines to ranchers and everyone else in the US who produces CO2. "You boys cut that out! Billy, if you throw another mudball I'm going to spank your brother!"
-- At about 3:05 in the intervew she starts into the auto industry. (Paraphrased) "We need a single national roadmap . . . that tells automakers what type of cars that they need to building for the American people". Really. I thought the American people got to communicate this directly to the automakers through their purchasing decisions. I don't think the American people want the government taking away their voice in this issue. The (sympathetic) NPR interviewer asks if that's really the government's proper role, "it doesn't sound like free enterprise." EPA Adminstrator Jackson's response has to be heard to be believed.
At least no one can claim to be surprised about where we are heading.