Texas Sends Snarkygram To EPA Over EPA Globull Warming Demands
- 0share
- Share
- Tweet
- Comment Now 0
Have y’all seen this one yet? Texas is not amused by EPA demands
It’s no secret the Environmental Protection Agency and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality are at odds with each other right now. But the language in a letter from Attorney General Greg Abbott and TCEQ head Bryan Shaw complaining about EPA’s efforts to regulate greenhouse gases via the Clean Air Act gets pretty snarky.
The letter (see below) addressed Aug. 2 and sent to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and Regional EPA administrator Alfredo Almendariz, outlines the many reasons Texas doesn’t like the way EPA is trying to go about regulating greenhouse gases. But it starts off with a bang
And the beginning of the letter goes like this
“In order to deter challenges to your plan for centralized control of industrialized development through the issuance of permits for greenhouse gases, you have called upon each state to declare its allegiance to the Environmental Protection Agency’s recently enacted greenhouse gas regulations — regulations that are plainly contrary to United State law. ….. To encourage acquiescence with your unsupported findings you threaten to usurp state enforcement authority and to federalize the permitting program of any state that fails to pledge their fealty to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).”
And, yes, not that you ask, the full letter does continue that snarky trend. I can imagine Lisa Jackson’s face resembling a tomato upon reading.
On behalf of the State of Texas, we write to inform you that Texas has neither the authority nor the intention of interpreting, ignoring, or amending its laws in order to compel the permitting of greenhouse gas emissions. (snip)
In order to avoid the absurd results of EPA’s own creation, you have developed a “tailoring rule” in which you have substituted your own judgment for Congress’s as to how deep and wide to spread the permitting burden. Notably absent from your rules is any evidence that they would achieve specific results; in fact, you assiduously (and correctly) avoid ascribing what environmental benefit may be achieved by mandating permits to emit a uniformly distributed, trace constituent of clean air, vital to all life, that is emitted by all productive activities on Earth.
Followed by plenty more, which simply amounts to “go to hell, or whatever commie/socialist/progressive underworld you believe in. We won’t comply with your rules.”
Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach
- 0share
- Share
- Tweet
- Comment Now 0
