It worked. Acid rain has been greatly diminished.

Enter: Obama. The president religiously believes that carbon dioxide is to blame for the vast majority (if not all) of global warming.

From the start, Obama has pushed Congress to pass a Cap and Trade bill that would cut greenhouse emissions – and economic prosperity (For further information on the devastating costs of cap-and-trade, see Cost of AB 32 on California Small Businesses)
.
The Senate, however, has refused to bow to President Obama’s demands.

So, in an effort to force their hand, the president had the EPA redefine carbon dioxide as a “pollutant.” This definition change gives him (he is in charge of the EPA) the power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

So much for checks and balances…

At first, the EPA will only regulate large industrial plants – those that emit more than 25,000 tons of CO per year (if you wonder where they got that arbitrary number… well, you’re not alone).

But this opens up a Pandora’s box of litigation.

Here’s an example. There are two industrial plants: one emits 25,000 tons of CO per year; the other, emits 24,750 tons per year. Under the new EPA rules the first plant would have to pay an exorbitant fee. The second plant gets off scott free.

Of course, the plant that emits more than 25,000 will sue the EPA, because the 25,000 ton level is an arbitrary number that produces grossly unfair results.

But wait -- there’s even more lawsuits on the horizon…

Environmentalists will also sue the EPA because they want to regulate all plants that emit over 250 tons per year (Holy Taxes Batman!).

These are just the litigation nightmares. The economic scenario is just as bleak.

As Congresswomen Valazquez strong>
said, “The Clean Air Act… was not written with the complexities of climate change in mind. The reforms needed are sweeping, and Congress must craft a policy that takes small business needs into account.”