Global Warming Causes Flooding

In this case, a flood of EPA legislation. The Obama administration plans a glut of new EPA rules implemented by fiat, since some of them have already failed to become law in Congress, and the rest are so bad that they’ve never even been voted upon or in many cases even offered.

Much of this was quiet planning with the EPA to sting America, mostly lower income workers, either directly through new taxes on what they buy, or indirectly though measures to make what they buy much more expensive.

Anthony Watts has a summary, and more details are in this US Senate committee report on environment and public works. (This is the minority report, i.e., the Republicans — I suspect that few Senate Democrats would risk complaining about this now.)  The Senate report quotes Obama campaign advisor Carol Browner on the upcoming environmental agenda, and notes:

Browner is referring to the slew of job-killing EPA regulations that the Obama-EPA has put on hold until after the election but will be on the “to-do” list for 2013. As the economy has continued to falter over the past year, team Obama has been delaying rule after rule that will eliminate American jobs, drive up the price of gas at the pump even more, impose construction bans on local communities, and essentially shut down American oil, natural gas, and coal production. They don’t want this economic pain to hit American families just before the election because it would cost President Obama votes, so they have simply decided to punt, intending to move full speed ahead if they gain a second term.

The list is impressive, and much of it is still under wraps. The Landmark Legal Foundation has filed suit against the EPA for blocking FOIA requests to find out more about these planned rule changes.

The new rules are bad.  And would be unpopular, if the media talked about them now.  They were mentioned months ago, and are in a writeup on the American Thinker website:

Ozone Rule: As the New York Times reported last year, President Obama punted on tightening the ozone standard until after the election, admitting that the “regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty” would harm jobs and the economy — but he still pointed to the fact that it will be reconsidered in 2013.  EPA itself estimated that its ozone standard would cost $90 billion a year, while other studies have projected that the rule could cost upwards of a trillion dollars and destroy 7.4 million jobs.  By EPA’s own projections, it could put 650 additional counties into the category of “non-attainment,” which is the equivalent of posting a “closed for business” sign on communities.  Affected counties will suffer from severe EPA-imposed restrictions on job creation and business expansion, including large numbers of plant closures.

Much like Obama’s private comment to Russia’s leadership, he’s signaled to his friends that he will have a lot more “flexibility” after the election.  And for a couple of months, this will be true even if he loses.

===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle