Elections Have Consequences

The new GOP majority in the Senate is gearing up to finally do more than just complain about the EPA’s economy killing regulations, they are ready to take action. From The Hill:

The GOP sees the midterm elections as a mandate to roll back rules from the Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies, with Republicans citing regulatory costs they say cripple the economy and skepticism about the cause of climate change.

Incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) identified his top priority come January as “to try to do whatever I can to get the EPA reined in.”

McConnell made his defense of coal a major piece of Kentucky’s economy, a highlight of his reelection bid, which he won easily over Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes.

He said he feels a “deep responsibility” to stop the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants, as it proposed to do in January for newly built generators and in June for existing ones.

Now if we could just get a little action on CARB’s economy killing regulations in California. National action on EPA regulations will help many of the states that compete with California, but will be of little help in this state. In fact states with lower energy costs could hurt the California’s economy, as they lure California companies to their lower energy domaines.  Reining in the EPA could be bad for California, as companies look for the best deal in energy costs and leave the state.

About Russ Steele

Freelance writer and climate change blogger. Russ spent twenty years in the Air Force as a navigator specializing in electronics warfare and digital systems. After his service he was employed for sixteen years as concept developer for TRW, an aerospace and automotive company, and then was CEO of a non-profit Internet provider for 18 months. Russ's articles have appeared in Comstock's Business, Capitol Journal, Trailer Life, Monitoring Times, and Idaho Magazine.
This entry was posted in AB-32, Analysis, California, Climate Change, Economics, Jobs and Economy and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Elections Have Consequences

  1. Fuzz says:

    Russ, I read your viewpoint, but I have a request. Could you please post your overall view of the environment and what good stewardship of it would require. By environment, I’m referring to public lands, air, water, extractives, etc. Do you believe it exists purely to be exploited for private financial gain, completely unregulated and privately held, or do you see some benefit to setting aside areas to be preserved in a natural state for future generations. (By “setting aside” I don’t mean just a few notable national parks, such as Yosemite and Yellowstone, but also larger tracks of wilderness and wild lands, free of commercial activity.) I ask this because the right is always on the warpath to eliminate the EPA, and probably OSHA as well, but they never explain their overall position on the environment. (Note: by “natural state” I’m not saying there couldn’t be some well planned thinning in national forests to reduce fuel load, but not open ended logging.) If some national GOP entity puts out a position paper on their view of the environment, please point me to it. Thanks.


  2. Dena says:

    Unlike Obama, congress can’t go it alone. Anything they pass has to be signed by Obama. If Obama fails to sign they have to get a 2/3 majority to override Obama’s veto. This shouldn’t be as hard as it was before because some of the Democrats who wish to remain in office will need to help the Republicans in order to do so. The Tea Party cleaned house in 2010 but there are some senators left that they can go after in 2016 and there is a bunch they can go after in 2018. The 2018 crowd survived only because of the IRS and the fact Obama was up for reelection. That won’t be the case in 2018


Comments are closed.