Sen. Jim Inhofe writes in the Hill:
The science behind climate change is uncertain, but the cost of the president’s regulations is not. Every time we have debated climate change legislation in Congress, reliable studies have pegged the legislation’s cost at $300 billion to $400 billion per year. Because the president has chosen the path of unilaterally controlling greenhouse gas emissions through regulation, the cost could be far higher. Regardless, the rules will produce the same lackluster results.
Action by the United States alone to reduce greenhouse gases will not move the needle on climate change. Lisa Jackson, the president’s first EPA administrator made this point clearly before Congress in July 2009. Her successor, Gina McCarthy, also testified in September of this year that no single action on greenhouse gases was likely have any observable impact on climate change.
All the while, the Obama administration is crippling America’s future economic growth with these regulations while our economic competitors forge ahead at making energy prices predictable, cheap and attractive for doing business.
To make matters worse, the EPA has established a culture of overregulation that is making our economy less competitive on the global landscape. NERA Economic Consulting recently estimated that just six of the EPA’s recent rules would annually drain up to $630 billion of economic activity and eliminate 9 million jobs. If those jobs disappeared today, the unemployment rate would rise to 13 percent. Add the greenhouse gas regulations into the mix, and it is no wonder American businesses are delaying projects at home and moving others overseas.
Americans don’t want to regulate problems that don’t exist — they want the government to get out of their way.