EPA CO2: The "Absurd Results" Doctrine
The EPA is basing its new regulations on CO2 emissions around the "absurd results" doctrine. I could not make this stuff up if I tried.
The EPA recently found that CO2 was dangerous. This endangerment finding allows the EPA to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act. Of course, this finding was released the same morning as and in coordination with Sen. Kerry's cap-and-trade bill. Political coercion much? I thought the EPA was meant to be non-political...
The issue is that under the Clean Air Act, the EPA has to regulate every source of over 250 tons per annum. Which would be basically every company, office, school, restaurant, farm, everything. So, instead, they arbitrarily made up the number of 25,000 tons per annum, which though it has no basis in any legislation anywhere, they liked because it targets the big evil companies while leaving consumers and small businesses alone.
Their justification for this? The "absurd results" doctrine. The idea here, according to the EPA is that if they actually followed the regulations passed by the legislature, the results would be "so illogical or contrary to sensible policy as to be beyond anything that Congress could reasonably have intended." The best part? The author of the original bill—Michigan Democrat John Dingell—says it was never intended to cover CO2 in the first place.
So the EPA is saying that applying the Clean Air Act to something it was never intended to be applied to would have such a negative result that it can't have been the intention of congress to have applied it that way in the first place. NO SHIT.
And their incredible conclusion from this? That instead of actually following the legislation, they should have the right to change an act of congress. They even admit they are "departing from the literal application of statutory provisions."
![[whatthefuckasaurus.JPG]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyGy09i35iPG1WJ0Rv1t-TKN4VsrGpXwofVmNCQggSaumenrM0iWHvsHebFTihP9iBEEwRe62K1wiklbtRH2sP_SVREOi4gU8DIPoaqoaA_BTXW_nDzjZRDQY5X6Rtn9X1cEVB2Mcra5QM/s1600/whatthefuckasaurus.JPG)
The EPA recently found that CO2 was dangerous. This endangerment finding allows the EPA to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act. Of course, this finding was released the same morning as and in coordination with Sen. Kerry's cap-and-trade bill. Political coercion much? I thought the EPA was meant to be non-political...
The issue is that under the Clean Air Act, the EPA has to regulate every source of over 250 tons per annum. Which would be basically every company, office, school, restaurant, farm, everything. So, instead, they arbitrarily made up the number of 25,000 tons per annum, which though it has no basis in any legislation anywhere, they liked because it targets the big evil companies while leaving consumers and small businesses alone.
Their justification for this? The "absurd results" doctrine. The idea here, according to the EPA is that if they actually followed the regulations passed by the legislature, the results would be "so illogical or contrary to sensible policy as to be beyond anything that Congress could reasonably have intended." The best part? The author of the original bill—Michigan Democrat John Dingell—says it was never intended to cover CO2 in the first place.
So the EPA is saying that applying the Clean Air Act to something it was never intended to be applied to would have such a negative result that it can't have been the intention of congress to have applied it that way in the first place. NO SHIT.
And their incredible conclusion from this? That instead of actually following the legislation, they should have the right to change an act of congress. They even admit they are "departing from the literal application of statutory provisions."
Comments
Post a Comment