Upton is the incoming Republican Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. His commentary was co-authored with Tim Phillips of Americans for Prosperity. Here is a selection:
On Jan. 2, the Environmental Protection Agency will officially begin regulating the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. This move represents an unconstitutional power grab that will kill millions of jobs—unless Congress steps in....
The best solution is for Congress to overturn the EPA's proposed greenhouse gas regulations outright. If Democrats refuse to join Republicans in doing so, then they should at least join a sensible bipartisan compromise to mandate that the EPA delay its regulations until the courts complete their examination of the agency's endangerment finding and proposed rules.
Like me, Upton and Phillips are not buying the argument that carbon dioxide is a problem. They write:
This presumes that carbon is a problem in need of regulation. We are not convinced.
Their main argument is the harm that carbon regulation will do to the American consumer:
The day after the recent midterm elections, President Obama was asked about the voters' repudiation of cap and trade. He responded: "Cap and trade was just one way of skinning the cat; it was not the only way. It was a means, not an end."
Cuts in carbon emissions would mean significantly higher electricity prices. We think the American consumer would prefer not to be skinned by Obama's EPA.
But the harm to the American manufacturer will be much more monumental, especially since Obama gave China a pass in the Copenhagen Accord to freely emit carbon dioxide without any outside accountability.
Upton and Phillip's commentary was the first shot in a battle on carbon regulation that will likely heat up soon. The EPA promised in agreements to lay out new standards for power plants by July 26, 2011 and new standards for oil refineries by December 10, 2011. These standards will raise the costs of electricity and gasoline for American households and businesses.
Comment by Fred Myer, 1/5/2011:
Actually zealots who can't count (Like you with your previous boondoggle of an article) are compromising this country. We'll be stuck with a manufacturing base making stuff no body wants if you have it your old stuck in the mud way. WE'd be driving 1950's cars like they do in Cuba. You certainly wouldn't be using the internet to spread you're inability to do basic math. The internet is a massive subsidised project that now pays off through efficiency with online databases, shopping etc.
Get it together and pull your socks up and be a man and get behind the modernisation of the US economy.
Have a spine.
Comment by Fred Myer, 1/5/2011:
Like Me - you won an award??? and you can't even do basic math, claiming a solar plant that costs 100s of millions cost 175Billion. That shows no ability what so ever to even do a basic back of the envelope?
What's wrong with you? Do you have a parasite, virus or bacteria that is eating your brain?
[An] extensive argument for balanced trade, and a program to achieve balanced trade is presented in Trading Away Our Future, by Raymond Richman, Howard Richman and Jesse Richman. “A minimum standard for ensuring that trade does benefit all is that trade should be relatively in balance.” [Balanced Trade entry]
Journal of Economic Literature:
[Trading Away Our Future] Examines the costs and benefits of U.S. trade and tax policies. Discusses why trade deficits matter; root of the trade deficit; the “ostrich” and “eagles” attitudes; how to balance trade; taxation of capital gains; the real estate tax; the corporate income tax; solving the low savings problem; how to protect one’s assets; and a program for a strong America....
Atlantic Economic Journal:
In Trading Away Our Future Richman ... advocates the immediate adoption of a set of public policy proposal designed to reduce the trade deficit and increase domestic savings.... the set of public policy proposals is a wake-up call... [February 17, 2009 review by T.H. Cate]