This so-called "endangerment finding" sets the clock ticking on a vast array of taxes and regulation that EPA will have the power to impose across the economy, and all with little or no political debate.
How bad could it be?
The centerpiece of the Clean Air Act is something called the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, or NAAQS, under which the EPA decides the appropriate atmospheric concentration of a given air pollutant. Under this law the states must adopt measures to meet a NAAQS goal, and the costs cannot be considered. For global warming, this is going to be a hugely expensive futility parade.
Because greenhouse gasses mix in the atmosphere, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere over Kansas could be from CO2 from China. Yet Kansas is somehow supposed to regulate them. And the regulations are extensive:
Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA also must regulate all "major" sources of emissions that emit more than 250 tons of an air pollutant in a year. That includes "any building, structure, facility or installation." This might be a reasonable threshold for conventional pollutants such as SOX or NOX, but it's extremely low for carbon. Hundreds of thousands of currently unregulated sources will suddenly be subject to the EPA's preconstruction permitting and review, including schools, hospitals, malls, restaurants, farms and colleges. According to EPA, the average permit today takes 866 hours for a source to prepare, and 301 hours for EPA to process. So this regulatory burden will increase by several orders of magnitude.
Some perspective: In order to get a CAA permit (assuming that 866 hours estimate is accurate and not low) a business (school, hospital, farm, college, etc.) will have to have one full time person working nearly five months. Hey, there goes our unemployment problem (if you don't understand why that's a joke, you need to study basic economics).
Right now the EPA is only talking cars. But that's bad enough, forcing automakers to make tiny crapboxes no one will want to buy (way to save the auto industry). But there will be lawsuits to force it to extend CAA to stationary sources.
Which brings us back to the Obama Administration's political roulette. Democrats know that their cap-and-tax agenda is losing ground, notably among Midwestern Senators. The EPA "endangerment" is intended to threaten businesses and state and local governments until they surrender and support the Obama agenda. The car industry is merely the first target, meant to be the object lesson.
So it's pass something awful (cap and trade/Waxman-Markey) or get something worse out of the EPA. This isn't democracy but extortion. It's carbonism, green fascism, and mob tactics in the name of "stopping" climate change which is probably natural, anyway.
This is the proposed system, the government will auction off right-to-pollute licenses, and then these will be traded on the open market. Once these securities are being traded you can be sure that someone will start creating derivatives and other financial instruments of economic mass destruction not backed by anything of intrinsic value creating another economic obamageddon (just like the Democrats created by allowing Glass Steagall to expire and mixing in the forced Community Investment Act).
The smell in the plan is the failure of the European Cap and Trade program and no one wants to bring up the stink! European nations have increased their carbon emissions since adopting the Kyoto global-warming treaty in 1997.
We the disagreeable Americans who have not signed the Kyoto Treaty nor YET implemented Cap and Trade have actually reduced carbon emissions by 1.8%. Obamageddon's mentor Karl Marx was wrong people are not totally motivated by money and material needs people will and do change when motivated by social stigma and facts for example when they see all the water being polluted even though it may cost them.
In Israel researchers demonstrated this a while back. A day care center was imposing fines on parents who brought their children in late. The rate of truancy increased. The reason being psychologically the penalty reduced the stigma of being late-a truancy license so to speak. So has giving Europe the purchase of a license to pollute reduced the stigma of being a greenhouse gas producer?
Gorezillas palatial mansion has a carbon footprint twenty times larger than the average American home but the Patron Saint of the Polar Bears has no problem with that claiming he purchases enough carbon offsets to reduce the footprint to zero. Whether he does or not I would like to point out average Americans are not pulling in the dough he is from this Scam!
As with all Tax Schemes there will come the inherent problem of raising and re-raising taxes as was done with the Cigarette Tax being being raised recently 62 cents to pay for his SCHIP program. Nevermind the tax will not make people quit smoking The Resident is still smoking but the government likes the money and just like being an Enabler for a drug addict this enables our government to tax more and spend it on whatever it wants witness Social Security! Where is the money for that they have been stealing from it for years and it will most likely explode next year!
So while the obamageddon Lies to you about the true use of Cap and Trade he is planning to use it to fund his Health Care plan and that is a whole other bag of Ills but if you do not think of it as a Lie what good can you tell me will it do to reduce Carbon emissions if the money is sent elsewhere? Ironically, in a cap and trade market, there will come a point where it does not make economic sense to reduce carbon emissions. As companies reduce carbon output, there will be less demand for these licenses to pollute since their auction price and trading price go down making a bottom line $$$ sense to polluters to clean up their own act.
Funny the Looney's may not like Enron but they were big believers in Cap and Trade because it would "do more to promote Enron's business than almost any other regulatory intitivative" so if they do not like them why is the obamageddon so willing to help those types out?
Few things are more appealing in politics than something for nothing. As Congress begins considering anti-global-warming legislation, environmentalists hold out precisely that tantalizing prospect: We can conquer global warming at virtually no cost. Here's a typical claim, from the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF):
Like I said the obamageddon will force it your will pay for it and he and his buddies will profit from it.