Last week we reported on the EPA’s upcoming plans to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Yesterday 18 United States governors including Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty sent a letter to the EPA to protest the upcoming regulations. The governors are worried about the EPA’s ability to properly oversee the regulations as well as the potential cost on industry and the states’ governments in light of our frail economy.
As it stands the EPA regulation is for polluters over 75,000 tons of carbon per year. Lisa Jackson, EPA Administrator, announced the new plan last week and pushed the regulation to start in 2011 to give businesses and utilities time to prepare. Under the new law polluters will be overseen by the EPA and the government agency will make sure they are using the latest technology to do everything they can to limit emissions. There are plans in the house and senate by congresspeople on both sides to stop the law entirely or to push its implementation back.
As always the law is caught in a rift between the right and the left. The left is saying that in order to further energy innovation and regulate climate change, regulations are neccessary. The right, as seen in the governor’s letter, is saying that any regulation whatsoever will be harmful to the economy and hinder the state governments with extra work.
5 Responses to “18 US Governors Write to EPA to Say Emissions Limits Will Hurt the Economy”
get the free Inhabitat newsletter
more popular stories >
more popular stories >
more popular stories >
Great info.
They care so much about the economy, but seem to miss the point that regulation like this can and most likely will encourage competition and promote economic sustainability in the long run. Aside from that, without a stable climate our economy will be the last thing we care about – and if our society survives major climate destabilization, the economic future cost of NOT regulating emissions will be orders of magnitude greater than the small hit we take when we start limiting emissions today.
These complaints and omissions of climate/environmental concerns are short-sighted and wrong.
The environment is more important than the economy. The economy is important, of course, but a stable market doesn’t matter when you can’t breathe because of toxins in the air and you can’t eat because farmland has become desert. If the highest priority is survival, the environment has to come first.
i agree with steady and will,
and my future children’s physical health is what i care about most, i ONLY spend money on strictly all green businesses and have dedicate all time into eco-friendly options anyways… no compromises when it comes to the environment.
But Emissions are good for Us! …
http://imgur.com/1HCox.jpg