And we wouldn’t want to do that until after Obama is re-elected.
So thanks for the heads up there, chief!
Regulation of greenhouse gasses by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could reverse the very modest economic recovery and even send it back into a recession, a report from the National Center for Public Policy Research finds.
“These regulations,” author Dana Joel Gattuso wrote, “will have a more severe impact on energy costs, U.S. jobs, household income, and economic growth than cap-and-trade legislation would have had. Furthermore, the regulations could reverse the economy’s direction toward recovery and push us back into an economic slump.”
EPA has considered regulating the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses under the Clean Air Act, which the Supreme Court gave the agency the power to regulate greenhouse gasses in the name of fighting air pollution.
EPA has not yet enacted the types of greenhouse gas regulations Gattuso’s paper warns of, but the agency has announced that it plans to do so in the near future.
“EPA will propose standards for power plants in July 2011 and for refineries in December 2011 and will issue final standards in May 2012 and November 2012, respectively,” EPA said in a December 2010 press release.
Gattuso also reported that GHG regulations would cost the economy jobs, worsening an already bad employment situation. Particularly hard hit would be African-Americans, who would bear a disproportionate share of the job losses caused by the EPA’s anti-global warming regulations.
“The U.S. economy will also stand to lose millions of jobs as energy prices soar and industry is forced to cut back or invest overseas,” the report said.
“Furthermore, the rules will have an unjust and disproportionately large impact on minorities, increasing the number of African Americans in poverty by 20 percent,” it added.
Women and minorites Lock-step Obama voters hardest hit.
But don’t worry. There’s an ap for that.
WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE!
Really? Fining us for generating emissions that don’t matter but are ubiquitous, and as a result raising the cost of just about everything would hurt economic recovery?
Get outta here!
But don’t worry, it’s not like any of this is intended!
I don’t know what we would do without reports like this to inform us on how the economy can be changed for the worse by onerous and immensely stupid regulation.
This stuff is so easy a child could figure it out. They mean to destroy us.
Good news for the Wisconsin union thugs. Breaking a few teabagger heads = carbon footprint reduction … for the children!!!.
Wow. That Truthout piece is magnificent. A long, tedious piece of agitprop bemoaning and condemning the agitprop it opposes. A “thorough” examination of the molding of popular consciousness by a contrived media narrative that wholly ignores the structures that drive the overwhelming narrative that conforms to Truthout’s principles, such as they are. A study of the existence of a class struggle in the shadows, and a call to return that aggression in kind, without any hint of awareness about the actual class struggles happening right under their noses. And the conclusion of this 5,000-word tedium?
There are useful idiots, and then there are tools perfectly crafted to achieve the ends of their masters. Mr. Pirsch stands as a shining example of the latter.
Oh, Lordy. It gets better! Mr. Pirsch’s bio: Michael Pirsch was a union activist and union organizer for over 25 years and a D.J. on Berkeley Liberation Radio, a pirate radio station. He now lives as an economic refugee from the US in Thailand.
That’s just too precious!
Hm. I wonder how much scratch an “economic refugee” pulls in. And does it come with an expense account for the Thai ladyboys?
Honestly, the guy quotes from Chavez and Galeano with a straight face. Here’s the latter:
Because, you know, simply nobody is going to read, share, or discuss Mr. Pirsch’s tedious Marxism in the public arena. No communications infrastructure has evolved in the past 20 years to give voice to the masses. Nuh uh.
The irony is that Pirsch actually advocates for a number of things that I agree with. Neighbors looking out for neighbors. Legal and medical services provided by volunteers on a local basis. Alternative media to provide news and information outside that deemed “newsworthy” by the traditional gatekeepers. Why do Pirsch and I advocate these things and yet disagree on so much? I can’t help but suspect that it’s because I want communities to have local control over themselves, while Pirsch wants nothing more than fresh troops for his community organizing campaigns.
Where I want a local group that can provide coaches and umpires for Little League, Pirsch wants a local group that can shake down the “rich folk” from the other side of the tracks to pay for coaches and umpires.
Does he claim the Tea Party to be controlled by billionaires because making up such a lie suits his purposes? Or does he genuinely believe that no group could spontaneously form to look after its own interests, without there being a controlling power figure calling the shots? Given the history and the arguments of guys like Pirsch, it’s an open question.
This “critical” part is as far as I needed to go.
Have we reached criticality yet?
You are apparently a “critical thinker” if you embrace Marxist idiocies. I guess I’m not a critical thinker, then.
These folks are as entertaining as Fidel on ‘srooms…this is on their front page: “Revolution is a phase, a mood, like spring, and just as spring has its buds and showers, so revolution has its ebullience, its bravery, its hope, and its solidarity.”
Jeez, I’m so dense. Never knew Spring was so, well, uh, proletariat.
I do agree with Chavez about consumer culture, though=> We should be more focused on why Shawn Penn and Oliver Stone movies continue to get funded.
Look – since the EPA doesn’t actually have the authority to do this shit, as noted by a circuit court, what say we all just ignore the dumb bastards?
What are they gonna do? Take us to court?
The important thing to remember is that Teh Won! is on your side, provided that you do not A) produce energy, or B) use energy.
Paraphrasing some smart guy: “I wouldn’t mind so much that this golf-playing, waffle-eating, racist Church-attending, ‘present’-voting slacker got elected to Washington. What I mind is that he brought all his bloody-minded busybody know-it-all friends with him.”
Gaea must be preserved from the threat of the ape like creatures that crawl on the surface of the planet.
Truthout. Heh. I was stuck by the part where they sound an awful lot like Glenn Beck:
That’s roughly The Overton Window. Of course, Pirsch veers around wildly apart from that, once I hit the black/white income figures I got all tl;dr.
Not to mention who might not be an African American but runs a particular industry which will be beaten and whipped due to overblown concepts of Global Warming. While these fools have virtually no science to support this fading planetary belief they simply cannot be swayed from this world-pushing concept that puts them in charge of beating up the world’s population based upon … very little scientific. Well, at least nothing happening in a scientific proven sense beyond “too much snow and too much heat means GLOBAL WARMING AEEIIII!!!”
Our CESMI and his leftist cronies continue to be unhistorical fools. Sez me!
I cannot stand these fuckers. It is funny, not in a hahahahahahahaLOL kind of way, how all of these programs are designed to start after the next election. If they are so important, and good, and vital, why not immediately?
That’s easy, JD: they needed ten years of revenue against five years of expense if they were to have a prayer of making them look deficit-neutral.
And even then, Squid, they were only wrong (read lying) by a few trillion dollars.
Is it coincidental that Gattuso’s lament makes cap and trade look “better” by comparison?
BUT. BUT. 97% of climate scientists agree that the economic impacts will be minor! IT’S TRUE GUYS! How dare we be skeptical!