The EPA Gets A Red Card

What do the World Cup and President Obama's new EPA regulations have in common? For one thing, they're both massive boondoggles with international ambitions. The goal of reducing carbon emissions 30% by 2030 does sound grand, and it's designed to get other countries to follow suit. But instead of landing on a 30 for 30-esque highlight series for global politics, this proposal is more likely to end up on this White House's endless blooper reel. Here's why:

President Obama’s Misguided EPA Rules Will Kill Thousands of Jobs

Estimates vary as to exactly how many jobs will be lost. On the low end, the EPA itself estimates somewhere between 56,000 and 80,400 full-time jobs will be lost by 2025, while a recent analysis conducted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce concluded that some 224,000 jobs will be lost per year through 2030. That’ll sting in this economy, sort of like a soccer ball to the face…

American families will face higher energy bills

The Chamber of Commerce report found that the proposed rule would increase electricity costs by $289 billion through 2030 and lower household disposable income by $586 billion through that same time period. The report also estimates that consumer spending on energy will increase $17 billion per year from 2014 to 2030. These higher prices would be a kick to the crotch for American families…

These rules will make America less competitive in the global marketplace

Why should America impose restrictive bureaucratic rules that hamstring our own job creators and raise the utility bills of working Americans, while countries like China benefit from the relatively unrestricted use of and access to cheap, abundant energy? This will definitely hinder our ability to score when the game is on the line…

Market forces are already resulting in greater energy efficiency

Carbon dioxide emissions have dropped by more than 12% since 2007 – declining to their lowest levels in twenty years, with carbon intensity reaching its lowest levels ever in 2012. These lower levels of pollutants are the result of individuals and businesses seeking to shrink costs – not bureaucratic red tape. So overall, emissions are dropping like a player down the stairs…

By the EPA’s own accounting, the rules will have little impact on global temperature

By the administration’s own admission, the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions will do little to prevent global climate change. The EPA’s own climate model estimates the new policies would only prevent .018 ºC of warming by 2100. This is a big swing-and-a-miss on the part of the EPA...

The EPA’s new proposal encourage states to establish cap-and-trade programs

The EPA regs encourage the creation of state and regional cap-and-trade programs by allowing states to convert their emissions rate limits into mass-based limits, which become the caps in a cap-and-trade regime. So instead of letting cap-and-trade fail in 2009, maybe Congress was trying to kick the pole down the road to the states…

The EPA regulations limit flexibility

States only have 120 days to understand, analyze and rebut the analysis and guidelines the EPA has set out for each state. That leaves states hamstrung if they don't respond fast enough, with no opportunity to collaborate with the Feds. You have to work together to avoid making things worse, unlike these guys…