What about its duties to follow the laws against illegal human experiments and to submit to the Freedom of Information Act? Legitimate government is more important that climate change — real or imaginary.
“The Environmental Protection Agency has the power — I’d call it a duty — to issue rules limiting carbon emissions per unit of electricity generated. Tough, science-based rulemaking would give utilities an incentive to switch from coal to gas — and effectively guarantee that no new coal-fired plants would be built.”
The sad thing here is I have to use that /sarc tag. Yes, it’s an idiotic statement. We are dealing with the EPA. There was a time when no one would have thought my comment was serious–but not anymore. Reality has become so stupid that sarcasm has to be labelled, even when so far off the reality scale it should not have to be. I’m going back to beating my head on the keyboard…….
The limit is zero. No pollutants anywhere. Period. According to the EPA.
/sarc
Are some persons still reading Eugene Robinson’s columns? I wonder why.
Having checked the website linked in your name, I deduce that you’re not being ironic.
No pollutants, anywhere? Aside from the rank idiocy of such a statement, what in the world does that have to do with CO2? It’s not a pollutant, it’s one of the cornerstones of live on earth.
The limit is zero. No pollutants anywhere. Period.
“Tough, science-based rulemaking would give…” utilities every reason to use appropriate fuels for their location, their plant and their grid needs. “Tough, science-based rulemaking…” would prove that CO2 emissions are meaningless.
The EPA has an appropriate role in an interstate public benefit: clean air and clean water do affect the whole country; everyone lives downstream and downwind. The problem, of course, is defining limits to the power related to that public benefit. Clearly this person is not the one to set the limits.