Councilman Liedtke's EPA Response
Email Print

(Please, note sources referenced below) I hope we are all in favor of saving the planet… but some of the statements found in resolution 2012-30 are open for debate, may not be based on sound vetted science and will likely result in an even higher unemployment rate (which went up to a nationwide average of 8.2% last week (3)).

The statement that the Clean Air Act produced economic benefits valued at 2 trillion or 30 times the cost of the regulations is one statement in this resolution that is concerning. Consider a 1999 EPA report claiming to show that the Clean Air Act would generate $170 billion in economic benefits in 2010. (1) But EPA's numbers changed dramatically when the agency released its 2011 report on the alleged economic benefits of the Clean Air Act. (1) The EPA's new number was $2 trillion, an increase exceeding 1,000 percent. (1)

How did the Obama EPA come up with this number? (1) We may never know… According to several sources….Government officials used an economic model that, according to the scientists who wrote the 2011 study, was filled with "significant" and "major uncertainties." (1)

The researchers even admitted that because of their model's design flaws, "there is no way to validate" their findings. (1) The EPA has refused to make their data available for outside review yet the EPA wants more authority to enact more regulations.(1) Such outlandish findings are not exceptions at the EPA, but the rule. (1)

When the EPA proposes a regulation based on science, it should name the papers it is depending on and it should make data sets used in those papers publicly available. (1) Claims are more likely to be valid and resulting policy sensible. (1) Let normal science help in the vetting process. (1) Make the data available. (1) Since taxpayers are paying for it, we ought to be able to see the price sticker and how the price was obtained. (1)

Also…We live in a global economy with global competition, and nations like China and the European Union have absolutely no intention of similarly burdening their interests like we are asking the EPA to do with this resolution. Manufacturing jobs will continue to leave this country if we allow the EPA to enact regulation on CO2 emissions and the United States will lose its ability to compete with the rest of the world. We may actually need legislation to PREVENT the EPA from regulating CO2 emissions because they are currently out of control. (Drone flights over Nebraska…Really!?- (2))

CO2 regulation and laws need to be left up to congress…which unfortunately has become increasingly irrelevant in recent years. Without provisions in resolution 2012-30 for addressing CO2 emissions globally and without a provision for the EPA to make their data publically available we should not be supporting resolution 2012-30.

 

Sources: (1) Washington Examiner Editorial – “EPA should stop hiding the data used in making regulations” - February 8, 2012 (2) Infowars – Kurt Nimmo – “EPA Using Drones to Spy on Cattle Ranchers in Nebraska and Iowa” – June 4, 2012 (3) Washington Post – Patrice Hill – “Unemployment rises to 8.2 percent; Huge Disappointment for Main, Wall Streets” – June 1, 2012

Related Articles
Share: 
Tags: None