Now we know why President Obama isn’t spending any time fighting a war on unemployment. He’s too busy fighting his war on coal.

Indeed, while the past few months have seen tiny signs our economy might be growing despite Obama’s anti-job policies, the White House is ramping up its effort to make sure our labor force is expunged of every last coal job it can find. It’d be humorous if it wasn’t so real.

If we start exposing this radical nonsense coming out of the Obama EPA, conservatives can push back on these bad policies. Environmentalists rarely get their way when people actually pay attention to what they want to do.

The latest battle will be coming any day now, as the EPA has said it will issue its Utility NSPS (New Source Performance Standards) sometime in January. Any new utility plants will have to meet a new set of environmental standards – standards that conveniently work out great for natural gas but are prohibitively expensive for coal plants, even new ones, to meet.

(more…)

We never thought that there would be a problem with an Obama administration regulatory agency not regulating enough, but that bizarre day has come. The Federal Electric Reliability Commission (FERC), which is charged with ensuring that the nation’s power grid remain operational, is frozen like a deer in the headlights when it comes to a pair of incoming EPA rules that pose a grave threat to reliability.

To repeat: in the one instance when we actually need federal regulators to intervene, the agency in question is failing to do its job.  Oh, the irony.

From Politico:

A FERC DIVIDED – It’s not only lobbyists and lawmakers who are arguing over whether EPA regulations pose a threat to the U.S. electric grid. The debate has consumed the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the board tasked with ensuring the nation a reliable supply of electricity.

The most outspoken commissioner, Philip Moeller, is pushing for his agency to scrutinize EPA’s proposals more closely, while saying the EPA should consider delaying implementation of some rules for more than a year. But fellow Commissioners Cheryl LaFleur and John Norris argue that delaying the rules might run afoul of the certainty that Moeller is seeking.

(more…)

Republicans were in an “Internet uproar” last week over a false report that EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson had called them “jack-booted thugs.” Meanwhile, deeply troubling statements that EPA officials did make have hardly stirred a ripple in the blogosphere.

At a recent hearing before a House oversight panel, three Obama administration witnesses — National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Administrator David Strickland, EPA Assistant Air Administrator Gina McCarthy, and EPA Transportation and Air Quality Director Margo Oge – denied under oath that motor vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards are “related to” fuel economy standards. In so doing, they denied plain facts they must know to be true. They lied to Congress.

House Government Oversight and Reform Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) put it more diplomatically: “Your statements under oath misrepresented the relationship between regulating greenhouse gases and regulating fuel economy.” By “obstinately insisting” that regulating greenhouse gases and fuel economy are “separate and unrelated endeavors,” the officials “impede the Committee’s important oversight work.”

Why did they “misrepresent” and “impede”? Had the officials answered truthfully, they would have to admit that California’s greenhouse gas motor vehicle emissions law, AB 1493, which EPA approved in June 2009, violates the Energy Policy Conservation Act’s (EPCA) express preemption of state laws or regulations “related to” fuel economy. The officials would also have to admit that EPA is effectively regulating fuel economy, a function outside the scope of its statutory authority.

Strongly Related

That greenhouse gas emission standards implicitly regulate fuel economy is evident from the agencies’ own documents. As EPA and NHTSA acknowledge in their joint May 2010 Greenhouse Gas/Fuel Economy Tailpipe Rule (pp. 25424, 25327), no commercially available technologies exist to capture or filter out carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from motor vehicles. Consequently, the only way to decrease grams of CO2 per mile is to reduce fuel consumption per mile — that is, increase fuel economy. Carbon dioxide constitutes 94.9% of vehicular greenhouse gas emissions, and “there is a single pool of technologies… that reduce fuel consumption and thereby CO2 emissions as well.”

(more…)

As the opposition to CSPAR (Cross-state Air Pollution Regulations) spreads across state lines and various groups, there have been over 30 lawsuits filed to challenge the rule. The groups include power companies, cities, states, industry groups, as well as labor organizations. Meanwhile, Luminant continues to push the Administration to carefully consider the inevitable job loss that will result from this rule.

The opposition continues to grow and crosses party lines. In fact, the Austin American-Statesman recently published an op-ed by the Texas Chapter of the AFL-CIO. The piece, entitled, “Cross-State Air Pollution delay would help Texas workers,” emphasized the tough times that workers are facing in Texas and criticized the timeline of CSPAR. Becky Moeller, Texas AFL-CIO President, chastised the EPA for failing to provide an adequate public comment period.

It is important to remember that most parties involved, including Luminant, have made significant efforts to meet Clean Air standards and are willing to work together to ensure that future generations of Texans will have clean air to breathe. In fact, as Ms. Moeller points out, AFL-CIO and Luminant have worked closely together to do just that. This is not an all-out attack on the EPA or environmental standards, but the fact is that the specifics of CSPAR simply do not provide Luminant with the appropriate timeframe to meet the new standards. It’s not just a matter of making changes to equipment – people’s jobs and livelihoods are at stake. Anywhere between 500 and 1000 jobs will be lost. Texans cannot afford this, and the AFL-CIO has spoken out in support of working families who have the most to lose from this unreasonable restriction.

While Luminant continues to push for a stay to the regulation in order to allow the proper time and resources to make the adjustments, last week the Administration asked a federal appeals court to dismiss Luminant’s petition to curb CSPAR. Politico’s Darren Goode recently featured a story that highlighted the ongoing battle between the EPA and Luminant. The Administration’s appeal claims that the EPA “provided detailed and extensive notice and opportunity to comment on the methodology, assumptions and data it used to determine which states would be included in the rule.” The fact is that the updated rule that included Texas was not released until July, thus allowing less than six months for Luminant to comply with CSPAR when the changes required will take years to put in place.

(more…)

The EPA just revealed revisions to the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) that they say will give more flexibility to states for implementation of the rule. I applaud the EPA for finally admitting its errors in calculations and flawed methodology, but I am not sure about the motives behind this move. The EPA’s admission that they have to go back and make “technical corrections” to CSAPR highlights that the original rule was based on flawed math.

The EPA was in a rush to implement these rules and failed to consider the sweeping job loss that would result. There was a complete lack of consideration for the possibility that the information upon which the rule was based may have, in fact, been inaccurate. Now the EPA is citing incorrect assumptions for the “technical corrections.” Well, these “technical corrections” will do little to put to rest the fears of Texans who will potentially be out of work as a result of this rule.

The changes are very minimal, and they have only happened because the EPA was repeatedly called out for faulty calculations. But what is most troubling is that the changes do nothing to reduce the time crunch that Texas is under in order to attempt to comply with the rule by January 2012. With such an unrealistic timeframe to comply, jobs will likely still be lost. Donna Nelson, the Chairman of the Texas Public Utility Commission remarked that she “would be thrilled if they were to change their position or to give Texas the due process they were required to do under law, [but] it looks like they are tinkering around the edges, not making big changes.” (more…)

The EPA has justified much of its job-killing regulatory agenda by citing promises of improved public health and reduced health care costs to treat respiratory illnesses it claims are exacerbated by airborne pollution. They’ve even recruited advocacy groups like the American Lung Association to publicly endorse the rules.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson

However, the medical community remains unconvinced.  Medical professionals and U.S. Reps. Paul Broun, Larry Bucshon, Michael Burgess, Bill Cassidy, John Fleming, Phil Gingrey and Paul Gosar have written a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson urging her to delay implementation of the proposed Utility Maximum Achievable Control Technology rule (MACT), which imposes stringent new standards on coal-fueled power plants.

Why this particular policy? Well, the Utility MACT rule is expected to cause widespread shutdowns of power plants across the country.  The letter signers state that the proposed rule will actually hurt public health by raising electricity prices and thus health care costs, therefore negating any supposed longer-term health benefits.

From the letter:

We ask that the EPA take into account the direct and indirect costs associated with the proposed rule and withdraw the rule until we can be assured of its positive contribution to public health…

It is well established that additional costs placed upon the healthcare and economic sectors of our country may actually damage public health and raise premature death rates.  Given the extremely high cost of the Utility MACT proposal – perhaps the most expensive in the Agency’s history – we ask that the EPA take into account the direct and indirect costs associated with the proposed rule and withdraw the rule until we can be assured of its positive contribution to public health.  The American public deserves no less.

(more…)

As it turns out, the Cross-State Air Pollution rule’s devastating effects will extend beyond my hometown of Fairfield and the borders of Texas. On September 22nd, seven state’s attorneys general joined together to file an official petition for review of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s Cross-State Air Pollution rule. It’s reassuring to see that State Attorney Generals have noticed the consequences of this rule that will affect so many working families in Texas and elsewhere. The other filing states include Nebraska, Alabama, Florida, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Virginia. Clearly this is a significant issue and the EPA must no longer snub the growing number of state and local government officials’ demands for a review of the rule.

The Dallas Morning News recently published an op-ed by David Campbell, President of Luminant. Mr. Campbell represents the 4,400 Luminant employees in Texas whose jobs have been threatened as a result of the Cross-State Air Pollution rule. My father is one of the employees whose position Mr. Campbell is fighting to keep. Luminant must reduce sulfur dioxide emissions by 64 percent in the next 3 months in order to comply with the regulation. In order to comply with the rule, the company will lose two power generating units, or 1,300 megawatts of power. Not long ago, Texans, along with many Americans, suffered through an unbearably hot summer. Luminant employees worked around the clock to avoid massive blackouts. Luminant customers cannot afford to lose 1,300 megawatts of power. As a result of the shut downs, Luminant will be forced to cut 500 jobs, in areas where employment remains scarce. Why would we put the jobs of so many neccessary employees on the chopping block when we need them the most? It seems like the EPA should be more thorough in seeking data related to the capacity losses and cost increases during record breaking summers and frigid winters like many parts of the Lonestar state have been facing in the past year.

As Campbell pointed out, this is not simply a case of “industry vs. EPA.” What concerns me, and directly affects my family, is the disproportionate negative effect this rule will have on Texans. Texas was a late addition to the EPA’s rule, yet Texas is still required to comply with the rule by Jan. 1, only six months from the date it was issued. My professors don’t ask students to write a 30-page thesis a week before the semester ends. It takes time to research the topic, make the outline, disseminate the research, convey the findings, and determine the conclusion. It’s not something than can be completed late in the game, as the EPA has asked of Texas energy companies. An agency as large as the EPA should understand the time and resources required to make these drastic changes.

(more…)

There has been much discussion on Capitol Hill this week surrounding legislation that could provide temporary relief to energy providers across the country. The TRAIN Act – or Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation Act of 2011 – would mandate interagency economic analyses of EPA rules and delays two rules on power plant emissions.

I, for one, am thrilled the EPA’s economic “train wreck” could soon come to a screeching halt. The Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), in particular, would have negative effects across our economy: the country’s energy reliability would be weakened, monthly utility bills would increase, and power plants would be forced to close their doors; sending thousands of hard-working Americans to the unemployment line. Thanks to an amendment drafted by US Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY), the TRAIN Act would ensure a minimum three-year delay of CSAPR.

EPA chief Lisa Jackson recently suggested the agency should “regulate sensibly – in a manner that does not create undue burdens and that carefully considers both the benefits and the costs.” Such a statement is surprising considering the EPA, by their own admission, has not taken jobs or the economy into account when drafting new regulations. Nor have they provided sufficient opportunities for experts to assess the implications of these burdensome regulations.

Unfortunately, Texas is already suffering the consequences of the EPA’s shortsightedness. Luminant Generation Co., a Dallas-based power-plant operator, announced earlier this month that it will be forced to cut 500 jobs and shut down two units at one of its coal-fired power plants if they are forced to comply with the EPA’s unrealistic regulations.

(more…)

This summer, the EPA released a new regulation regarding coal-fired power plants in Texas. Called the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), it will devastate mine and other local communities, wreak havoc on already strained power supplies, and cause the loss of hundreds of jobs during a time of economic hardship.

The economy in my hometown, Fairfield, Texas, is all but based on our local plant/mine, Big Brown. The owner of Big Brown, Luminant, has just announced that that the local coal mine that fuels Big Brown will be shut down so the company can try and comply with the new rule. This loss to our community in Fairfield is enough to cause concern, but the issue hits even closer to home for me. My father has worked at Big Brown for 38 years.

In addition to the loss of local jobs, tax revenue to pay for our schools, roads and other necessary infrastructure will be greatly diminished. Luminant also announced the necessary closure of two other power units and the mine that supports them in Northeast Texas. It’s not hard to imagine the negative impact this will have on small local communities that are struggling to stay on their feet in this difficult economy. But the damage doesn’t stop in Fairfield and other communities. It extends to our whole state. Texans as a whole stands to be negatively impacted by sharply climbing electrical prices and rolling blackouts. There were numerous days this summer when our electric grid was a few hundred megawatts from running out of power. The plant closures from Luminant, alone, means that there will be 1,200 less megawatts of power now available.

The outrage I feel isn’t just about economic hardship, higher electricity prices, and rolling blackouts. It’s about fairness and truth. CSAPR did not originally include Texas in its new regulations, but the EPA decided at the last minute to include Texas. As a further slap in the face, they made the compliance date January 2012. This leaves less than 6 months for compliance by Texas power plants.

(more…)

A lead story in Wednesday’s trade press publication E&E Daily was “Energy, fighting EPA at the core of GOP jobs agenda”. This is true, but also reveals what may be the greatest gap between Obamanomics and an approach to governance that most Republicans claim to support:

• Obama treats the energy sector like a centrally planned jobs program, putting the boot on the neck of the stuff that works while ‘creating’ politically desired but economically unsustainable positions making politically desired but economically undesirable products. Republicans argue that if wind- and solar-powered electricity, pioneered in the 1890s, work then they will work but in the meantime creating jobs in the energy sector means getting your boot off the neck of the stuff that works.
• Obama and his team have long argued that their costly regulations will actually create jobs. Of course, every program, regulation and even hurricane “creates jobs”, just not on net. The administration either doesn’t get ‘net’, or thinks you will be persuaded by ‘the seen’ and imagine there is no unseen.

EPA administrator Lisa Jackson embarked upon a campaign to advance these absurd arguments in February, arguing that, e.g., if she adopts a rule requiring you to do something costly or even prematurely destroy capital, why, you’ll have to hire someone to do it!

The WSJ accurately characterized this philosophy: “In other words, the government should harm an industry and force it to ruin working assets so maybe other people can clean up the mess.”

Obama administration “green jobs” emissary Jackson also said these will require many more new environmental regulators. Yes, she said that, risible dogma that was repeated by administration apologists as recently as this week on NPR’s Diane Rehm Show. So they aren’t giving up on it.

Except… On the Friday before this past long holiday weekend, President Obama somewhat buried a rational decision if a decision, like Thursday’s speech announcing Son of Stimulus, rooted entirely in his own political needs.

(more…)

From The Associated Press:

President Barack Obama on Friday scrapped his administration’s controversial plans to tighten smog rules, bowing to the demands of congressional Republicans and some business leaders.

Obama overruled the Environmental Protection Agency—and the unanimous opinion of its independent panel of scientific advisers—and directed administrator Lisa Jackson to withdraw the proposed regulation to reduce concentrations of ground-level ozone, smog’s main ingredient. The decision rests in part on reducing regulatory burdens and uncertainty for businesses at a time of rampant uncertainty about an unsteady economy.

The announcement came shortly after a new government report on private sector employment showed that businesses essentially added no new jobs last month—and that the jobless rate remained stuck at a historically high 9.1 percent.

(more…)

Last week, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) and a number of other Congressmen with states who rely heavily on energy production for economic stability, sent a letter to EPA head Lisa Jackson expressing some concerns over her agency’s impartiality. At the heart of their complaints, a series of backdoor regulations the EPA has put into place in recent months: regulations that are not only harming American energy industries, but which are actively destroying jobs in a already troubled economy.

Now, the EPA doesn’t seem to mind that it wields extensive power that it’s using to change the very fabric of the American financial system, but residents of states whose economies are dependent on energy job growth – and the leaders of these industries – are starting to see a problem.

Before, it might have just been industries that environmentalists considered “problematic,” but a recent EPA rule is about to put a wrench in the operations of nearly every carbon-dioxide-expelling creature or industry on the planet. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, part of the Clean Air Act, currently demands that ozone emissions be limited to 75 parts per billion. That standard was put into place only two years ago, and companies are only now beginning to come into compliance. Instead of allowing industries to meet this standard, though, the EPA immediately moved the goalposts: they are now considering standards that would limit ozone emissions to only 70 or, more stringent yet, 60 parts per billion.

Apart from economic and social context, these numbers seem meaningless. But consider this: if the EPA were to choose the lesser of the standards, 70 parts per billion, only 24% of the 675 US counties who monitor ozone would be in compliance. If the bar were lowered to 60 parts per billion, only 4% of counties would make the cut. All of the areas that didn’t meet the standard would become subject to strict EPA scrutiny, as well as billions in fees and fines. Some of the more egregious offenders might even lose federal highway funding, and find themselves under the never-ending watchful eye of Lisa Jackson’s already-intrusive environmental watchdogs.

(more…)

Imagine my surprise to receive, within the span of minutes, both the following news story in Energy &Environment Daily — ” EPA: Jackson summons top aides for budget pow-wow as GOP sharpens knife: In the face of drastic funding cuts and a hostile political environment, U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has told her top deputies to rank which of their programs they deem to be essential and which could fall on the budgetary chopping block” — and the following invitation, just circulated around EPA headquarters.

Just keep this in mind when the results of this “pow-wow” — ritual demagoguery and a lot of talk about children, seniors and the poor — pop in the next few days.

(more…)

Rest easy America, for not only is the EPA busy saving the planet, it’s taken on a new responsibility: saving the economy. The Departments of Commerce and Energy can close up shop and Treasury Department better start investing in some new equipment to count all of the riches that are going to flood into America’s coffers now that EPA is on the job.

How can an agency charged with protecting human health and the environment that’s famous for placing obstacles in front of industry that Evil Keneval wouldn’t be able to clear succeed in jump starting the economy, when the rest of the Obama administration has failed so miserably at the task? It’s a complicated formula, but it all boils down to this for EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson: what’s good for the environment is good for the economy.

Really.

Forget all that rubbish you may have heard that suggests that piling more and more regulations on American industry inhibits economic growth. It’s actually quite the opposite, and we know this because Ms. Jackson assures us it is so: the more environmental regulations, the more money we’ll all make. Don’t you worry for a moment about abandoning the use of the cheapest, most abundant energy resource we have, for example. America will be far better off burning less coal and generating electricity by using… er… uh… Well, we’re still working that out, but the less coal we use the more money we’ll make and we’ll also reduce our dependence on foreign oil – or something like that. They’re still working up the figures summarizing coal imports from Saudi Arabia, apparently.

(more…)

From the Associated Press:

Stymied in Congress, the Obama administration is moving unilaterally to clamp down on power plant and oil refinery greenhouse emissions, announcing plans for developing new standards over the next year.

In a statement posted on the agency’s website late Thursday, Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa Jackson said the aim was to better cope with pollution contributing to climate change.

“We are following through on our commitment to proceed in a measured and careful way to reduce GHG pollution that threatens the health and welfare of Americans,” Jackson said in a statement. She said emissions from power plants and oil refineries constitute about 40 percent of the greenhouse gas pollution in this country.

President Barack Obama had said two days after the midterm elections that he was disappointed Congress hadn’t acted on legislation achieving the same end, signaling that other options were under consideration.

(more…)

This week the EPA celebrates its 40th birthday. In honor of the occasion, they’ve launched a dedicated website called EPA@40, and it’s head, Lisa Jackson, will take off on a week-long party circuit designed to “highlight the impact of [the EPA's] efforts to clean up the air Americans breathe and the water they drink and the communities they live in” as well as her agency’s crusade to attend to “the unfinished business of the environmental movement.”

What started as a way to help the government respond to environmental disasters and spread conservation awareness, however, has metastasized into a bloated, over-reaching disaster of it’s own, championing extensive governmental intervention, curbing freedoms and, most recently, costing hard-working Americans their jobs, all in the name of preserving the environment.

In the midst of an economic downturn, the EPA will once again retool it’s famous, founding Clean Air Act, rewriting the historical legislation to suit Obama’s own bureaucratic needs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020. Sounds fantastic, right? Well, it’ll have a devastating effect on the private sector:

Achieving that level of reduction in greenhouse gases won’t be easy or cheap. This immense new burden on the private sector comes at precisely the wrong time for an economy still struggling to create new jobs and reduce near double-digit unemployment…The cost estimates are indeed staggering, according to an econometric study by the Manufacturers Alliance that projects more than 7.3 million lost jobs by 2020. The hardest-hit states include Texas, which would lose 1.7 million jobs, and Louisiana, with 938,000 positions lost. Others include California (846,000), Illinois (396,000) and Pennsylvania (351,000). Total losses would reduce the nation’s gross domestic product by $1.7 trillion, according to the Manufacturers Alliance.”

Of course, these new standards wouldn’t just affect isolated industries or particular states.

(more…)

Two months ago, I warned you about President Barack Obama’s EPA blending politics and science.

Now, according to an EPA news release issued Wednesday, the “blending” process appears to be complete:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today waived a limitation on selling fuel that is more than 10 percent ethanol for model year 2007 and newer cars and light trucks. The waiver applies to fuel that contains up to 15 percent ethanol – known as E15 – and only to model year 2007 and newer cars and light trucks. This represents the first of a number of actions that are needed from federal, state and industry towards commercialization of E15 gasoline blends. EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson made the decision after a review of the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) extensive testing and other available data on E15’s impact on engine durability and emissions.

What does that mean for American consumers accustomed to gasoline that already contains up to 10 percent ethanol? Plenty! In fact, the decision could do more harm than good, according to Jack Gerard, president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute.

In August, Gerard said this decision — made even before key safety and effectiveness studies have been completed — “could threaten vehicle performance and safety, void manufacturers’ warranties, confuse consumers – and create a public backlash against renewable fuels.”

(more…)

So. The White House sent EPA chief Lisa Jackson over to HuffPo to slam (smear?) the Murkowski resolution set to be voted on in the Senate on Thursday, which is designed to block a Power Grab by EPA and thereby to maintain our Constitution’s separation of powers.

The White House then followed this by threatening to veto the resolution if it passes.

In both cases, Team Obama tie S.J.Res. 26 to the Gulf oil spill and argue that, by blocking EPA’s claimed authority to regulate greenhouse gases, this exercise of the Congressional Review Act would cruelly block the administration’s diligent and dedicated campaign to reduce our dependence on oil and reduce the risk of such spills in the future.

Huh? Far from sounding familiar (at least, before this newest revision of the reasons for the “global warming” agenda was rolled out last week), this should sound somewhat newfangled.

In fact here we see that the “global warming” agenda — that had already morphed into a “climate change” agenda before it was an energy tax to create new jobs (because we all know that’s what tax increases do, silly) — is actually aimed at stopping oil spills. And we’ve always been at war with Eastasia, Winston.

(more…)

In the midst of a drive by Washington’s powerful ethanol lobby to expand what critics often deride as an artificially created, and government aided and promoted market for “fuel made from food,” the top administrator from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Wednesday testified before the Senate Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee, telling lawmakers the agency will make a final determination late summer on allowing higher levels of ethanol to be blended into gasoline.

The ethanol industry is currently petitioning the EPA for a waiver to increase ethanol blends in gasoline from 10 percent to 15 percent, in order to create a larger market–and artificial demand–for the fuel source.

Administrator Lisa Jackson said the agency’s decision awaits completion of Department of Energy (DOE) tests on ethanol—namely, how higher ethanol blends might adversely affect vehicle engines, a long-running concern of automakers and the marine leisure industry, among others—which she expects to receive by May. “We expect that once we get that additional data, and it will be publicly available, the EPA will be in a position to move toward a final decision on the waiver, late summer in the time period,” Jackson said in response to a line of questioning by ethanol booster Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

(more…)

As President Obama jets off to Denmark for the UN’s climate conference, I hope he will take some time as he flies over the Atlantic Ocean to revisit the science that led him to this trip.

The EPA sure didn’t.

Last week, unelected officials at the EPA abruptly put an end to honest debate by unilaterally declaring carbon dioxide a “harmful substance” and putting themselves in position to begin regulating emissions from every business and farm in America.

In making this rash decision, they have relied heavily upon findings by climate-change scientists that have been subsequently discredited by the scientists’ own e-mails, which indicate data manipulation and the exile of fellow researchers who didn’t agree with the group’s accepted, foregone conclusions.

As governor of a state that will be unfairly and dramatically impacted by the EPA’s ill-informed decision – one that will cost each Texas family $1,136 annually in higher costs and eliminate as many as 400,000 Texas jobs – this is simply unacceptable.

(more…)