Feed: Obama’s EPA jackboots and the Green agenda - AggScore: 12.6

Obama’s EPA jackboots and the Green agenda

---

caption id alignalignleft width210 caption The Green Movement will use bureaucrats if the congress doesn39t go along with their agenda. Photo New Revolutionimg srchttpcdn2b.examiner.comsitesdefaultfilesstyleslargehash0edc0edcdc5786c3f9af7aa6c9d9b8209c77.jpg alt The Green Movement will use bureaucrats if the congress doesnt go along with their agenda. Photo New Revolution width210 height170 captionWhile the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats know that passing socalled environmental legislation will be a tough sell to the American people, the White House is bypassing the legislative process by surreptitiously using the Environmental Protection Agency.EPA officials have declared carbon dioxide and other gases to be a threat to the environment and to the health of Americans. They are currently formulating regulations to restrict emissions from automobiles and trucks, power plants and other sources.For example, earlier this year, the EPA proposed a rule to lower the primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard NAAQS for ozone from the current standard of 75 parts per billion ppb to a level between 60 and 70 ppb. Under the Clean Air Act, areas that do not meet the new standard would then be considered nonattainment NA.An NA designation can hinder economic development and limit business expansion in an already struggling economy. EPA cites no new health studies as the reason for lowering the standard, but believes the prior administration did not go far enough in 2008 when the standard was lowered from 80 ppb to 75 ppb.blockquoteEPAs proposal would have the following effects The majority oflocalities with ozone monitors would exceed the new standard under baseline conditions In some cases, businesses would have to reduce emissions by more than 70 percent With existing technology, less than half of the necessary reductions would be achieved. This means that even if business installed all available controls, EPAs proposal will not be achievable and many counties would be in perpetual nonattainment and It would cost businesses and individuals as much as 4.2 billion, according to theEPAs own estimates.blockquoteRestrictive permit requirements discourage companies from building or expandingmajor manufacturing facilities in the state. These requirements include offsetting new emissions and installing the maximum emission reduction technology without consideration of costs.Federal funding for highway and transit projects can be lost unless the state demonstrates that the projects will not increase emissions. Costly compliance will make businesses less competitive and thus lead to direct employment losses. These direct losses will generate larger overall losses through multiplier effects.In addition to EPAs impact on the industrial sector, the EPA plans to initiate a socalled greenhouse gas tax on privately owned dairy farms and livestock. Under Title V of the Clean Air Act, farmers would pay a hefty permit fee for animals that emit 100 tons of greenhouse gasses annually, affecting the vast majority of the nations livestock operations.Any farm with more than 25 dairy cows, 50 beef cattle or 200 hogs would have to obtain a permit to operate, which, according to the United State Department of Agriculture, would cover 99 percent of dairy production, 95 percent of its hog production and 90 percent of beef production. According to one organization, the New York Farm Bureau, the new permits would cost farmers well over 110 million a year, dramatically impacting the agricultural sector and economy. The tax is estimated at 175 per dairy cow, 87.50 per head of beef cattle and 20 per hog. The added financial burden on alreadystruggling farmers could force many family farms out of business and lead to a raise in food prices.While greenhouse gas contributes to global warming according to some scientists and liberalleft politicians not all emissions are equal. Under this federal proposal, livestock is held as accountable as the industrial and transportation sectors, which is simply illogical. Thats essentially saying that a living, breathing cow is as detrimental to the environment as a coalpowered machine.US Department of Agriculture statistics indicate that the permit requirement and tax would include 99 percent of milk production, more than 90 percent of beef production and more than 95 percent of all hog production in the United States.In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency has told Marylands poultry farmers it intends to enforce for the first time federal pollution rules governing chicken manure a crackdown that has surprised and angered growers while pleasing environmentalists whove long complained about agricultural runoff foulingAt meetings between EPA officials and farm associations, attendees were told that hundreds of farmers must get federal pollutiondischarge permits if any manure from their flocks are washing off their land into drainage ditches and streams. More than half ofMarylans 800 poultry farmers have filed notices to get the permits, state officials say, but most observers are not confident of being successful unless the case goes to the US Supreme Court and before President Obama has an opportunity to nominate more leftist SCOTUS justices.Many Washington lawmakers, however, on both sides of the isle view this latest EPA move as a negative plan of action.