Reining in the EPA’s power grab

By Doug Carlson
Apr 6, 2011

From newspapers to cable news desks, the battle over government funding is dominating headlines this week. Lawmakers have until Friday night to reach an agreement on a continuing resolution, or else the government will face a partial shutdown.

Yet amid this power struggle over the purse is another heated battle that could touch the pocketbook and livelihood of every American, especially the poor: regulation of greenhouse gases.

Congress is currently considering legislation that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide—a naturally occurring substance, found even in the very air we exhale—in the name of curbing alleged man-made global warming. Commendably, the Energy Tax Prevention Act (H.R. 910/S. 482) would turn back one of the most far-reaching government power grabs in history.

Last week, the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission sent an action alert calling on concerned individuals to contact their lawmakers to urge support for the measure. The issue is still in play. The Senate pushed back last week’s expected vote on the measure as an amendment to a small business bill (S. 493) to this week. Meanwhile, the House will also consider the EPA measure this week.

Under the legislation, unelected bureaucrats would be stopped from burdening industries, businesses and individuals with hefty restrictions on carbon dioxide. As expressed in the EPA’s “endangerment finding,” the agency intends to regulate factories and businesses, and, even closer to home, vehicles, schools and churches, for starters. The proposed regulations top 18,000 pages. Quite simply, neither the EPA nor Congress should regulate the gas—most of which occurs naturally in the atmosphere—under the auspices of curbing highly disputable human-induced climate change.

But the EPA’s end-run around Congress is a power grab of heightened proportions. It follows failed congressional efforts to impose on Americans a draconian bill to cap energy usage by industries and to force over-emitters to buy carbon “credits.” In 2009, the House narrowly passed a cap and trade bill, 219-212. But the bill never became law as the Senate, lacking necessary support, did not take up the measure for a vote. Such a bill is all but dead in the current 112th Congress.

In light of this reality, the Obama administration has reverted to a dangerous course of action: If lawmakers won’t regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, then bureaucrats will.

The high costs of such regulation are widely known. These include increases in costs of energy and consumer products and loss of jobs—all of which would hit the poor especially hard. As then-Candidate Obama disclosed while stumping for a regulatory approach, “[E]lectricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” Business investment could drop by $100 billion to $300 billion under the EPA’s strong-arm regulations, according to the American Council for Capital Formation, and U.S. job losses could approach one million over multiple years, several studies project.

And what are the benefits? Not much of anything. The EPA itself concedes that putting in place its stringent greenhouse gas regulations would have no significant impact on the global average temperature in 90 years. In fact, jobs moving en masse overseas, an all but certainty, would likely increase global levels of real pollutants since much of the world has far fewer restrictions than the U.S. on emissions.

Caring for God’s creation is a biblical mandate. So is caring for the poor. But taking nonsensical regulatory steps that promise little if any environmental gain yet would adversely affect every man, woman and child through job losses and higher costs for energy and everyday commodities is foolhardy. It is all the more reckless for a government agency to do so when Congress has rejected the idea.

If you agree, please contact your representative and senators and tell them to vote “yes” on the Energy Tax Prevention Act (H.R. 910/S. 482) to stop the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.

Further Learning

Learn more about: Science, Environment,

You May Also Like

Moore says suspension of Robertson ‘ridiculous,’ calls for ‘cultural conversation,’ not intimidation

Dec 18, 2013

Contact: Elizabeth Bristow, 615-782-8409
or Dan Darling, 615-782-8413
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

NASHVILLE, Tenn.—During a recent interview on CNN’s Erin Burnett OutFront, Russell D. Moore, addressed the criticism that Phil Robertson, star of A&E’s Duck Dynasty, is receiving for his comments on homosexuality in a recent article for GQ magazine.

“Suggesting that people who hold to what every branch of the Christian faith has held to for 2,000 years is somehow bigoted or hateful is not productive for speech,” said Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, on CNN.

In response to the controversy, A&E announced that it has put Robertson “on hiatus,” an action that Russell D. Moore calls “ridiculous.”

“Silencing views one doesn’t agree with, rather than engaging them, is hardly open-minded,” Moore said on Twitter tonight.

Moore expounded his position on his blog, Moore to the Point.

“Admittedly, A&E didn’t hire Robertson to be Charlie Rose or George Will. They hired him to be comedic and sometimes shockingly homespun. Now, I thought his reported anatomical comparisons were ill-advised and crude. But that doesn’t seem to be where the controversy lies.

“The comments that seem most offensive to people are his moral assessments of sex outside of conjugal marriage, which were more or less just a recitation of the Apostle Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 6. As Christians, we believe that Jesus is lord over sexuality, and he says that sexuality is expressed rightly only in the marriage of a man and a woman. That’s not new. We also think we’re all sinners, and that God calls us all to repentance. That’s not new either.

“We’re a divided country on sexual issues. That’s why every news cycle brings more controversy. Why not engage one another, and have the debates in a civil fashion, without attempting to silence one another. I don’t agree with David Letterman’s views on divorce and cohabitation, but I don’t want him suspended for voicing them. I’ll bet I don’t agree with MTV’s Nev Schulman of the popular Catfish show on sexual ethics, but it wouldn’t put me in the fetal position under the table to hear him voice them.

“Let’s have the sort of cultural conversation that allows us to seek to persuade each other, not to seek to silence one another with intimidation. That’s what real diversity is all about.”

The full text of Moore’s blog can be found at

The Southern Baptist Convention is America’s largest non-Catholic denomination with more than 15.8 million members in over 46,000 churches nationwide. The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission is the SBC’s ethics, religious liberty and public policy agency with offices in Nashville, Tenn. and Washington, D.C.


To request an interview with Russell D. Moore
contact Elizabeth Bristow at (615) 782-8409
or Daniel Darling at (615) 782-8413,
or by e-mail at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
Visit our Web site at
Follow us on Twitter at @ERLCPressRoom.

Read More

A sexual resolution for the new year

By David E. Prince - Jan 9, 2014

Sex is wonderful! In fact, sex is a gloriously good gift of God. Christian dad, do your adolescent sons and daughters know this truth? Have you directly and unapologetically taught your sons this truth and have you led your wife to do so with your daughters?…

Read More

LIFE DIGEST: Philly abortion clinic’s horrors described

By Tom Strode - Apr 10, 2013

Testimony to the horrors inside Kermit Gosnell’s clinic continues to mount in the Philadelphia abortion doctor’s murder trial.

In a trial that began March 18, Gosnell faces seven counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of viable children who were killed after delivery and a count of third-degree murder in the death of a Virginia woman during a 2009 abortion.…

Read More
LIFE DIGEST: Arizona first to ban sex-, race-based abortions Quran burning ‘not the mark of a good neighbor,’ Land says