“Congress has the responsibility to legislate, not unelected bureaucrats. Today we won a victory by the concession of EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. She stated that the EPA would not create a cap and trade program for CO2 under the Clean Air Act. This admission is contrary to the views that many held who thought that the Waxman-Markey bill had to be passed in order to curtail the EPA’s actions on cap and trade.
“Administrator Jackson also stated that it was not the intention of the EPA to eliminate coal. However, EPA actions suggest otherwise. Increased regulations from the EPA are making production increasingly difficult. Whether done intentionally or unintentionally, eliminating coal will lead to higher costs when heating your home.
“Regulating greenhouse gases not only negatively impacts energy costs and coal production, but every coal-related industry from the railroads to electric production.
“To meet our growing energy demands, no source should be off the table – particularly coal and natural gas. By permanently preventing the EPA from enacting new greenhouse gas regulations under the Clean Air Act and rolling back current burdensome regulations, we can create more certainty for businesses and access more of America’s valuable energy reserves. I will continue to monitor this issue closely to ensure that the EPA’s deeds match Administrator Jackson’s words.”
Here’s how the bolded parts should have been written, in proper English:
*”Congress, not unelected bureaucrats, has the responsibility to legislate”
*Not really sure what he’s even trying to say here: “by the concession of…?”
*”…contrary to the views that many who thought that…held.”
*”are making coal production increasingly difficult”
*”not only negatively impacts energy costs and coal production, but also…”
*”no source – particularly not coal or natural gas – should be off the table”
Other than Griffith’s severe difficulties with the English language, his statement simply makes no sense. For starters, “cap and trade” is a specific method – actually developed by Republicans – to put a market price on pollutants. This was the core of the Waxman-Markey bill, the argument being that it would be a much more efficient and effective way of achieving pollution reductions than direct EPA regulation of said emissions. But nobody ever argued that “the Waxman-Markey bill had to be passed in order to curtail the EPA’s actions on cap and trade.” Instead, the argument was that Congress should pass legislation to deal with this complex problem, rather than leaving it to the EPA.
As we know, the House of Representatives passed a cap-and-trade bill, but the Senate never acted, thanks largely to Republican opposition. Now, the same party that torpedoed Congressional action is complaining about the EPA doing what the Supreme Court ordered it to do, and what Congress tasked it to do when it established the agency. Apparently, Morgan Griffith understands that about as well as he understands climate science and the English language.
Sign up for the Blue Virginia weekly newsletter
