Fred Upton's EPA Battle: Incoming Energy Chair Announces Plan To Stymie Carbon Regulations

Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), the incoming chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, recently indicated that he will be a visible and powerful opponent of the EPA's delayed plan to begin regulating carbon emissions.

In a Tuesday op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Upton calls the postponed measure "an unconstitutional power grab that will kill millions of jobs - unless Congress steps in."

Though this rhetoric is perhaps standard fare for conservatives willing to rail against environmental conservation in the name of unrestricted trade and production, Upton was once hoped by some to be the silver lining on a set of GOP committee chair appointments seemingly loaded with headstrong conservative idealists.

In fact, his supposedly moderate view on environmental issues was one of his biggest obstacles in becoming chairman of the House energy committee. Competing against conservative counterparts in Reps. Joe Barton (Texas) and John Shimkus (Ill.) Barton was forced to atone for prior comments supporting eco-friendly light bulbs and expressing concern over climate change.

Upton is now continuing his rightward positioning against energy and environmental conservation as well as the EPA by promising to stall the emissions regulations until the U.S. Court of Appeals rules on a partial stay of the agency's rules, a conclusion that could take years.

"The best solution is for Congress to overturn the EPA's proposed greenhouse gas regulations outright," Upton writes, alongside global warming denier Tim Phillips, president of Americans for Prosperity. If that fails, however, Upton appears prepared to halt the EPA's regulatory process with a deluge of legal challenges.

"This presumes that carbon is a problem in need of regulation. We are not convinced.... Cuts in carbon emissions would mean significantly higher electricity prices," Upton argues of the EPA's plan. "We think the American consumer would prefer not to be skinned by Obama's EPA."

Comments

[rbrown5518]

12:21 PM on 02/09/2011

***Rep. Fred Upton is the perfect guy for the job is you don't believe in unbiased science.

[dragonmaster]

07:36 AM on 01/02/2011

The planets atmosphere is already reacting to the high levels of C02. The bizarre weather last year, and the record floods in northeastern Australia are showing the results of imbalances of warmth. This is causing increased water vapor and enhanced precipitation.

Just as James Hansen has said- its the roll of the dice- and as the atmosphere warms more, it increases the effects of storms.

In any case- I hope Upton is lucky enough not to see a drought in the heartland of biblical proportions- or a CAT 3 hurricane up the east coast, it could make his Chairmanship very eventful- and not for those who try and deny we have very serious troubles occurring now and ahead.

As C02 levels approach 400ppm- its onlt going to become even more dicey- as the odds favoring more extreme events increase.

[farmilyman]

12:42 AM on 01/02/2011

It's because the environment is the enemy of multinational corporations.

[johuyik]

04:31 PM on 01/01/2011

Actually emission cuts would result in lower electricity prices as it would accelerate the investment in and development of energy alternatives.

What Upton means to say is that carbon caps would be bad for his pals in the gas/oil/coal industry. The caps would actually be good for America by creating green jobs...but again, that's not what Upton or any GOP'er wants to hear.

Why do you think people call them the Gas and Oil Party?

[swift goat pet for truth]

02:26 PM on 01/01/2011

Libs will get renewable energy when it can be as profitable as oil and gas.

Of course, it needs to be as profitable as oil and gas WITHOUT the subsidies that oil and gas will continue to get forever and ever.

It is the FREE MARKET WAY!!!

[DocSkull]

01:33 PM on 01/04/2011

"Libs will get renewable energy when it can be as profitable as oil and gas."

If you mean profitable to me, then renewable energy already wins. If you mean profitable to multinational corporations who sell a public resource, then your priorities are askew.

[swift goat pet for truth]

02:24 PM on 01/01/2011

Where in the Constitution does it say that the government should provide for Clean Air or Drinkable Water?

If there is enough demand for it, Corporations would be glad to put it in a plastic bag or bottle and charge you for it!

[DocSkull]

01:35 PM on 01/04/2011

"Where in the Constituti­on does it say that the government should provide for Clean Air or Drinkable Water?"

In case you aren't being ironical, "promote the general Welfare" is in the first sentence.

[b525]

01:59 PM on 01/01/2011

China's version of the U.S. E.P.A. has only 230 full-time employees to look over the polluting of 1.3 billion people and tens of thousands of corporations and is now one of the polluted nations on earth.

Since we in the U.S. import and use these minerals, oil and natural resources from China/other countries we should either lobby for better pollution controls in the countries we're buying these resources from, or mine, drill and harvest these resources here, where we have an established and credible E.P.A. (Environmental Protection Agency).

The danger is if all these industries begin to return to the U.S. and we then dismantle the E.P.A. and re-pollute the U.S. to levels comparable to China or to pollution levels we had here in the 1960's and 1970's when rivers were so polluted here they were CATCHING ON FIRE and Lake Erie was nearly lifeless from years of un-regulated dumping of toxic industrial wastes into nearby rivers/lakes.

There is now talk by some on the far-right of the political spectrum to DISMANTLE the U.S. E.P.A.. This is an extremely dangerous development and should be monitored heavily by all American's who care about clean air/water.

The Chinese government is now spending hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars attempting to clean up it's land, air and water from years of unregulated industrial and agricultural pollution/dumping into rivers and coastal waters.

China's extremely high yearly economic growth rates have come with a heavy environmental pricetag/damage.

[Alex Zhang]

12:39 AM on 01/01/2011

Those who don't want to curb carbon emissions because it will harm the economy 1) assume the economy can't be helped by large scale efforts to go green and that the "economy" purely rests on how well big businesses do, 2) either assume everything is going to be okay with our environment or think that even if things weren't okay, a bad environment is better than a bad economy.

Unfortunately, the facts are not on their side. I don't understand why people who claim things contrary to the facts aren't dismissed in this country. There seems to be no level of objectivity anymore. Even "facts" become subjective in the eyes of some. If you don't like the facts, just conjure up "facts" that contradict those you don't like! Pathetic, embarrassing, hopeless.

If anything, I feel it is in the current interest of all citizens (liberal and conservative) to band together and demand one thing from the government: a commitment to objective facts. This doesn't mean we should all say the environmentalists are correct. But since there is so much "disagreement" about global warming and its causes, why don't we ask the people who are most qualified to give us the answers? We all want to be "right", right? Why don't some people do this? It's because they don't actually want to know. This kind of behavior ought to be illegal. It harms all of us.

[Marcus1]

09:57 AM on 01/01/2011

You can thank the right wing media cabal for the distortion of facts and republicans running interference for corporate entities that stand to profit, like media empires that interestingly enough are supposed to give us our unbiased facts and information.

[returntocommonsense]

11:55 PM on 12/31/2010

"We are not convinced..."

Let's try this - if you drink hemlock, it will kill you. If you breath in toxic fumes or have poisonous gases seeping up through the ground, it will slowly kill you.

If you can grasp the first premise, then you should be able to grasp the second.

[rhdsma]

02:24 PM on 01/01/2011

Yes Virginia, there are many types of poison.

[luckyone77]

11:37 PM on 12/31/2010

the same old tired argument, but now there are no jobs left for regulation to kill, wall street and banksters have already done did the deed. And after manufacturing jobs have been shipped overseas, there is still one technology export area in which the US is world leader, which is ironically, environmental cleanup technology and alternative energy, which was developed precisely in response to environmental regulation.

[Non Sibi]

10:41 PM on 12/31/2010

GOP: Greedy Opportunistic Profiteers. [h/t stape45]

[Almondo]

10:08 PM on 12/31/2010

"I am trying to put an end to the fear mongering.­­"

and

"Did you ever consider that cap and tax could completely collapse the economy causing the decline of America to happen more rapidly?"

are mutually exclusive statements­­.

[Almondo]

10:03 PM on 12/31/2010

these filters bl0w g04ts.

[UpNorthGuyWI]

09:55 PM on 12/31/2010

GOP needs to tell EPA that they can't put cap and tax in place. They will represent the people. Obama and the liberals represent the non-productive elite.

[Almondo]

10:12 PM on 12/31/2010

The liberals need to er4dicate the GOP in future elections, this guy and the GOP non-produc­tive elite represent the d3mise of the planet.

[luckyone77]

11:40 PM on 12/31/2010

cap and tax failed. the current battle is over regulation and enforcement.

[DON McDONALD]

09:51 PM on 12/31/2010

It's nice to see that the coal and oil industries are getting what they paid for...one thing you can say for the GOP, once they get bought, they stay bought...their protection of the for profit health insurance and drug industries through out the health care debate is another splendid example ...follow the money...take a look at the campaign donations...