The EPA is becoming notorious for faking its cost-benefit numbers to justify onerous, and environmentally useless, regulations that will impose billions of dollars in compliance costs, cost many jobs, and seriously weaken the U.S. economy -- that is, unless the federal courts shoot them down for failing to follow the law. From the Clean Power Plan's assault on life-giving carbon dioxide to particulate matter and methane and more, the EPA is shameless in using buddy-reviewed (rather than truly peer-reviewed) research (often hidden from even the oversight of Congress to avoid any scrutiny) and even anecdotal material to justify regulations with enormous economic consequences. This, says CFACT advisor Larry Bell, must stop.
Once again the nanny state Environmental Protection Agency is out to protect -- its own jobs. The agency's new ozone regulatiosn are unneeded overkill that will do little if anything to help the environment but much to destroy jobs, businesses, and well-being of citizens. Dr. Charles Battig explains why.
Increasing ozone standards only makes sense if you want to harm the economy in every way possible.
EPA's proposed ozone regs will weigh down the economy with no meaningful benefit to the environment. Read CFACT's testimony to the EPA.
At EPA overregulation is the name of the game. The latest is EPA's proposal to drastically tighten its standard for atmospheric ozone.
Included in the Obama Administration's "Unified Agenda" for 2015 are new, job-killing standards for ground-level ozone that are the product of a friendly lawsuit from the Sierra Club. These rules the President put on hold in 2011 in an effort to reduce “regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty, particularly as our economy continues to recover" -- or maybe for fear they would harm his reelection chances in 2012. The new regulations will mean that, depending on the final rule, 76% to 96% of the country—including some national parks where the natural background levels for ozone are 65 to 67 parts per billion—will be out of compliance. This will deal a crushing blow to U.S. economic recovery -- and the Sierra Club and the President know and heartily approve of this tragic outcome.
Is it surprising that EPA continues to tell big fat lies about anything it wants to ban, but is reluctant to show the “science” on which the bans are based?