Command and Control

Cuba

Junior Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
756
Reaction score
10
Points
0
Location
PA
Visit site
The Obama administration is warning Congress that if it doesn't move to regulate greenhouse gases, the Environmental Protection Agency will take a "command-and-control" role over the process in way that could hurt business.

FOXNews.com - Administration Warns of 'Command-and-Control' Regulation Over Emissions

"If you don't pass this legislation, then ... the EPA is going to have to regulate in this area," the official said. "And it is not going to be able to regulate on a market-based way, so it's going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty."


This is a very bold move by the administration. Their decision to circumvent congress altogether and then directly threaten them, and the entire US economy, into the passage of an extremely unpopular policy of government control and regulation of industry, at great cost to the entire system from producer all the way to the consumer, is going to set quite a strong precedent. Can't regulate on a market-based way? Why is that? Not only is this the antithesis of what Obama stands for, at least if you believe what he has been telling us, but it is an intensly dangerous political move for an administration that already has the lowest approval rating of any presidency in recorded history at this stage. They have just alienated a very significant portion of their own party by doing so, and are doing it in a Chicago style strongarm move by making direct threats to the American people: pass cap and tax or we will destroy jobs and hurt the economy.

This door in the face tactic of politics is a massive step backwards, beyond even that of the Bush administration, which had an 86% approval rating at this point in their first term. I have no idea how this will play out or what checks and balances are in place to prevent this move, but this is pretty scary stuff. Political appointees have found a way to completely ignore democratic process. The house voted on cap and tax and passed it, now the administration, without pushing for the Senate to pass their version, has instead insulted the very role of congress in national decision making. Post partisan transparency indeed. We have now moved beyond even partisanship by eliminating both parties altogether and passing extreme liberal regulations without due process.
 

Wavex

Lazy Mod :D
Moderator
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
5,124
Reaction score
119
Points
0
Location
Long Beach, CA
Visit site
Your link doesn't work.

Great move by Obama indeed. Again, the US was the last industrialized country to do so and it was time! Without this legislation, there would be no way for the Obama's administration to make any real commitments in Copenhagen...

How is this measure "directly threatens the entire US economy?" lol... how did every other industrialized country implement this measure years ago and survive?

If we listen to you talk about Universal Healthcare and CO2 emission regulation, any country that has both should have gone bankrupt a long time ago no? How did they implement all these measures and are still all doing just fine? (actually a lot of them are proportionally doing much better than the US right now)... how is that possible when you keep talking about the end of the world when it comes to these measures? Or is the US so different than these other countries that while these reforms worked everywhere else they wouldn't work here? Why?

How did France just implement a CO2 tax for companies and individuals without going bankrupt? (FYI, France is one of the countries who did the best during the financial crisis and following recession)....


It is also worth mentioning that while Obama's administration is ready to negotiate in Copenhagen, they will NOT use the same stringent restrictions as everybody else... Obama's administration already said that their baseline year for emission reductions is not 1990 like everybody else, but 2005 I believe... so while most other countries will strive to cap their CO2 emissions to 40% above the 1990 levels, the US already said they plan to cap to 40% (or 20%...) above the 2005 baseline (which is obviously much higher than 1990).

Again, to summarize:
==> the US is leading the World (by far, like 3-4 times what the next large country emits) in terms of CO2 emissions per capita.

CO2_per_capita_per_country.png


and by country FYI:

CO2-by-country-2002.jpg



==> The US (Obama's administration) is very well aware that we can't automatically say yes to whatever the rest of the World wants, since the priority is the US economy, which is why the baseline year is 2005 and not 1990 like everyone else (and be reassured that there are a lot of other things Obama's administration will fight against in Copenhagen)... However, Obama's administration is also aware that some efforts need to be made (even if these efforts will not be up to par with what's really required at this time to have a real impact on ocean acidification and/or Global Warming), thus the legislation change mentioned above. But again, the US (Obama) will be a major opponent to a lot if not most measures proposed in Copenhagen because he knows the priority is the US economy (which is logical and obvious... every country out there will fight for their own interests first).

So again, you're being all dramatic when reality is different. If you look at the big picture Obama is doing the right thing: protecting the US while working with the rest of the World to resolve an issue that everybody agrees needs to be addressed.
 
Last edited:
Top