Gay Patriot Header Image

Overzealous EPA Regulation Threatens Energy Production

Among the “five steps officials in Washington should take immediately to spur faster hiring in America’s private sector”  the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Tom Donohue offered yesterday was unlocking our domestic energy resources.  When I blogged on Donohue’s points, Bruce chimed in claiming that one “would do the most good for the economy“.

Well, it seems that if something is good for the economy, the Obama administration intends to do the exact opposite.

And they’re not just limiting energy exploration, they’re also blocking its production.

New Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules threaten to shut down coal-fired power plants in Texas, costing jobs, increasing the cost and limiting the availability of energy in Texas.  (Via Insapundit.)  Over at RedState, Ben Howe details just how agency Administrator Lisa Jackson’s policies are helping destroy the coal industry.

As Joy McCann warns us, the same agency “is setting up a new standard for ozone in the air” which task “local authorities to figure out how they can remove a naturally occurring gas.”  (Read the whole thing.)

The agency wants totake over North Dakota’s federally authorized regional haze program because it doesn’t think the state’s rules will be tough enough to regulate two power plants.”  North Dakota is one of the few states booming in the economic downturn.

Those are just a few examples of how overzealous regulation at the EPA threatens energy production.  And that doesn’t even get to administration efforts to limit energy exploration.



  1. Of all the considerations for economic growth, cheap, abundant energy is the most important. Cheap, abundant energy was a key component of the booms of the 1950’s, 1960’s, and 1990’s; in those cases compensating for the much heavier tax burdens of those era. The most important economic policy in any administration should be cheap, abundant energy.

    Yet, Obama is hellbent on making energy expensive and scarce. Is it any wonder this policy is wrecking any chance of a meaningful recovery?

    Comment by V the K — August 5, 2011 @ 12:24 pm - August 5, 2011

  2. I have to admit, I’m not as well versed on environmental policy as I should be. Global warming, or whatever it’s called these days, just never got me going one way or another.

    Obviously, there are bad things out there for the environment. I’m of the belief that the government has an interest in keeping the people safe from those harmful materials when the benefit to society outweighs the costs.

    In this case, that doesn’t seem to be happening. While I’m often left of center on issues, government over-regulation is never good for anyone. One would hope that Obama and the congressional leaders would look to allow for more energy production that benefits this country and could help us out of the current economic despair we find ourselves in.

    Comment by aj — August 5, 2011 @ 12:47 pm - August 5, 2011

  3. The EPA changed their clean water standards and have been trying to push Florida to spend beau coup cash to comply. Gov. Scott & the legislature told them to take a flying leap as our current environmental stuff can deal with it. Naturally, the Old Liberal Media reports that Floridians are “Swimming in Pollution”, tourists will stop coming and Gov. Scott and the Republican led legislature don’t care.

    Comment by TGC — August 5, 2011 @ 1:39 pm - August 5, 2011

  4. […] Sins” as a jumpoff point for a great roundup of EPA abuses; something Dan of Gay Patriot also takes on (in a post that links my article on the EPA’s ridiculous new ozone […]

    Pingback by Around the ‘Sphere with EPA Overreach — August 5, 2011 @ 3:57 pm - August 5, 2011

  5. At some point, you just have to decide the environment is clean enough.

    Comment by V the K — August 5, 2011 @ 4:28 pm - August 5, 2011

  6. The EPA is out of control & needs to completely dismantled; it is doing more harm than good.

    Comment by Sebastian Shaw — August 5, 2011 @ 4:51 pm - August 5, 2011

  7. I don’t think this is overzealousness. I think this is part of Obama’s plan to take arrogant America down a notch and to deliberately collapse the system and get Americans clamoring for government intervention, i.e. socialism, as the solution.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — August 5, 2011 @ 7:57 pm - August 5, 2011

  8. Rick Moran pointed out the price tag:$9.5 billion dollars in ONE month of regulations. Way to help spur the job sector. … and to think some of this is being overseen by someone NO ONE elected, Cass Sunstein Regulatory CZAR. Please Congress! can’t you get rid of these CZARS?
    I love how all this slipped, yet again, under the radar of the media as we watched the dog and pony debt debate- Obama always manages to get the last laugh.

    Comment by mlb — August 6, 2011 @ 2:01 am - August 6, 2011

  9. V the K:”At some point, you just have to decide the environment is clean enough.”

    Man I really hope that’s sarcasm.

    Comment by Dooms — August 6, 2011 @ 3:02 pm - August 6, 2011

  10. #9: “V the K: ‘At some point, you just have to decide the environment is clean enough.’

    Man I really hope that’s sarcasm.”

    Of course Dooms can’t entertain the concept of a decision being made that the environment is clean enough because he thinks like a federal bureaucrat. In a bureaucrat’s world NOTHING is or will ever be clean enough, safe enough, fair enough, healthy enough, cheap enough, or [fill in the blank] enough for the government to leave it alone. Bureaucrats are so obsessed with controlling everything that not even federal court decisions ruling that their agency has no authority to exercise the power they’re wielding will stop them. The FCC’s crusade to implement “net neutrality” is a perfect example and the Obama Administration has given us many others, i.e., EPA, HHS, DOJ, etc. Even in 2011 we still have the government trying to mess with what we eat and what we feed our families and anyone who objects is labeled a paranoid nutjob by the Left because it’s all about “being healthy” (and who could be against THAT?)

    Comment by Sean A — August 7, 2011 @ 9:12 am - August 7, 2011

  11. Dooms, if a chemical increased your likelihood of becoming sick, disabled, or lethally injured by over forty times, you’d argue that it should be banned, right?

    Gay sex does. And since the risk is even more pronounced among young black men, wouldn’t you state that the government’s refusal to ban it is based on racism?

    What’s the matter, Dooms? You argue that “public safety” trumps any type of freedom or choice and that things that vastly increase the risk of injury, especially among black people, should be banned. Why are you bring a hypocrite when it comes to gay sex?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 7, 2011 @ 1:17 pm - August 7, 2011

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.