Congressional Pyrrhic victory over EPA regulation

The regulation of greenhouse gases (GHG) has been a contentious and divisive issue. The emission of mainly carbon dioxide from fossil fuels use has been blamed as the source for “climate change” by one side and largely dismissed by the other. The current Administration upon taking office 2 years ago supported by a Democrat Congress put forth an aggressive program to regulate GHG through a complex system of emissions ceilings and allowances, known as “cap-and-trade”. The details and history of the program are beyond my comments now but suffice it to say, if enacted into law “cap-and-trade” would have had an enormous impact on energy costs, energy use and energy production. 

 In the last Congress, cap-and-trade legislation fashioned by a Democrat majority passed the House, but failed to move in the heavily Democrat Senate.  As the legislation died, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stepped into the void to promulgate administrative rules to regulate greenhouse gases from major emitters of carbon and carbon equivalents under the guise of the 1970 Clean Air Act. The result of the rules is to impose a quasi-cap-and-trade system by regulatory fiat. EPA’s authority and the validity of the regulations are being challenged in multiple lawsuits. However, this is just the background as the real struggle is about political power.

 Republicans in Congress along with some moderate Democrats have been trying to overturn the EPA rules. The House of Representives with 19 Democrats voting with all the Republicans yesterday approved a bill preventing the U.S. EPA from regulating GHG emissions from a variety of sources. The day before the House vote the Senate considered four competing amendments which showed 64 senators voting for legislation that would strip, limit or delay EPA's rules. The most sweeping amendment by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) won 50 votes. However, due to the political division and the way the U.S. Senate is being run these days, it takes 60 votes to move any major legislation forward. 

 Each side declared victory after the latest Congressional vote. However, even though a majority of Members support the prevention of the EPA rules from going into effect in some form, it seems the outcome for them is a Pyrrhic victory of sorts. The phrase is named after King Pyrrhus whose army suffered irreplaceable casualties in defeating the Roman army in 280 BC. The Romans suffered substantially greater casualties than Pyrrhus. However, the Romans refused to surrender and kept on waging the war knowing they had the upper hand due to a larger supply of men and the determination never to yield. The Romans would simply wear their opponent out. 

The regulation of GHG is a defining issue regardless of your side. There will be more attempts in Congress to thwart the EPA. However the resolve on the part of the Administration and its liberal environmentalist allies coupled with the legislative process make repealing the rules almost Herculean. The fact is, the EPA is moving forward, inexorably, and with complete disregard to their opposition in Congress.  It may ultimately take a determined legislative strategy to jam the proposal through and force the President to accept it, or, of course, there is the next Presidential election.

Comments

[maggie]

Interesting viewpoint, but if the EPA doesn't regulate greenhouse gases, then who? Look forward to reading more on this intelligent and promising-looking blog.

[Been around the block a while]

As to the comment before this one, EPA is only to regulate as mandated by Congress. Regulatory agencies were never meant to legislate or extrapolate additional mandates from existing law. Its dangerous business.

The Administration's and environmentalist extremists' approach is nothing new. The people's lack of interest in hashing through the data and studies on greenhouse gases and encouraging logical legislative response is new. I cannot repeat this enough "Protecting the environment and resources and economic advancement are not mutually exclusive." If some sane party could address the Administration and help them to realize the current proposals by EPA will significantly impede economic progress as opposed to a moderate and well-educated legislative proposal providing appropriate incentives toward these carbon emission reductions might be the best solution and keep economic growth on track. Seek sanity from elected officials and accept nothing less. As for regulatory agencies, We're on a slippery slope and have been for forty years!

[Beverly Kephart]

Great Blog! I am a centralist, so I have an open mind to intelligent information. I just wish the rest of the US would read both sides of an issue from intelligent sources and then make intelligent decisions. I guess the operative word is intelligent!!!????? We are getting the "Tea Party" info down here in Mexico, but we also have both parties represented. Thanks, keep it coming.