You are here

Obama CO2 Emissions Plans Would Wreck Economy, Auto Industry

News Releases

Title

Obama CO2 Emissions Plans Would Wreck Economy, Auto Industry

Policy Experts Warn Against Wrong-Headed Energy Regulations

Washington,
D.C., January 26, 2009— President
Obama today announced he would seek to allow states to restrict tailpipe
emissions and order the U.S. Department of Transportation to develop higher
fuel-efficiency standards.  Both are
disastrous for the American people and the economy, say energy policy experts
at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. 

Statement
by Sam Kazman, CEI General Counsel, on CAFE standards: 

Federal fuel economy standards are already a huge hidden
burden on the industry, and the President is now proposing that make that
burden even heavier.  Congress is
spending billions to bail out the auto industry, and here's the President
coming up with new ways to sink it.  (Read
more on CAFE standards.)

Statement by Marlo Lewis,
CEI Senior Fellow, on state regulation: 

If President Obama's EPA grants the
waiver, an estimated 1.2 million previously unregulated buildings and
facilities would be exposed to new regulation, controls, paperwork, and
penalties under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
pre-construction permitting program; and millions would potentially be subject
to new record-keeping, reporting, and emission fees (virtual carbon taxes)
under the Title V operating permits program. 

The moment it becomes clear that
PSD and Title V would apply to CO2, new construction would come to a screeching
halt. A more potent de-stimulus package would be difficult to imagine.

Obama's plan with respect to state regulation would have the
Environmental Protection Agency grant a waiver to states, allowing them to
establish greenhouse gas emission standards under authority of the Clean Air
Act (CAA). That would make CO2 a regulated pollutant under the CAA, which in
turn will start the regulatory cascade described in the EPA's Advanced Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) and numerous comments (see here, here, and here).