‘Just say no’ not best response to EPA climate rules

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Dr. M. Provo, UT
    Aug. 14, 2015 2:02 p.m.

    As for me, I continue to be amazed at the notion that climate change is a huge problem that we must somehow stop, even if we have to smash our struggling economy to do it! Yes, we need to make wise use of our resources and take reasonable care of our nests but the idea that controlling carbon emissions to the extreme will do much to help the worldwide environment is truly a stretch of the facts and an illusion that would not come to pass.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Aug. 12, 2015 11:41 a.m.

    Why are we even listening to the EPA? The idea that CO2 is the driver for climate change is all based on flawed studies and models. Right now we have no idea what the driver is, and there is no proof.

    This is just one issue in a long string of issues that government scientists have used to make a living.

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    Aug. 12, 2015 9:08 a.m.

    @ Happy Valley: How do you propose we get heavy metals needed for batteries for electric cars without mining? We both know what would happen if any corporation had released toxic mining waste into rivers don't we? What do you think will happen to the wonderful EPA for doing it? NOTHING! Zip, zero nada! Talk about liberal delusion!

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Aug. 12, 2015 8:20 a.m.

    Mountanman said: "The EPA released millions of gallons of pollution into pristine rivers in Colorado, NM and Utah! Yep, the EPA is just a wonderful protector of the environment, isn't it?"

    Why was all that toxic waste there?
    Did the EPA put it there, or leave it there?


    The free market that allows for extractive industries to privatize the profits while socializing the costs?
    I thought you conservatives were all about responsibility, or is that only for the poor or individuals, corporate America gets a free pass though?

    It would seem that anything other than "all or none, black and white" is the binary brain a conservative devolution?

    I prefer the EPA over the corps would never do anything dangerous to increase their bottom line.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Aug. 12, 2015 5:23 a.m.

    Markets don't change just because. Many times they need a nudge in the right direction. For decades we drove cars that were horribly inefficient because we were told that better cars couldn't be made. Then CAFE standards came into play, and remarkably I now commute to a work in a luxury car that gets over 40 mpg.

    It would be wonderful if companies innovated just to do so. But woking in the Oil and Gas industry, I can tell you some industries haven't become better at what they do, simply because they haven't had to. Until fracking came along, the way we extract energy from under the earth's surface hadn't changed in over 100 years. How we produced end customer products hadn't changed either. Now that margins are narrowing, there is a scramble to make processes more efficient.

    Innovation sometime needs a shove. And congress can provide that incentive. I am not prescribing what that might be... could be a carrot, could be a stick. But I agree with the writer - what is going on now in government is because congress has failed to act proactively on their own.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Aug. 11, 2015 7:03 p.m.

    The EPA released millions of gallons of pollution into pristine rivers in Colorado, NM and Utah! Yep, the EPA is just a wonderful protector of the environment, isn't it?

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 11, 2015 1:52 p.m.

    Former Rep. Inglis has become a pariah in his own party because he believes that global warming is real and we should do something about it.

  • Baron Scarpia Logan, UT
    Aug. 11, 2015 1:19 p.m.

    For the "free marketeers" above, a little fact-checking:

    Energy isn't a free market. For electricity, we are beholden to utility monopolies that sell us polluting power whether we like it or not. Most utilities (e.g., Rocky Mountain Power, UAMPS, Rural Electrical Co-ops) are all heavily invested in coal, and they don't want to have to innovate to clean, price-stable sources (e.g., wind, solar). They can simply pass pollution and price-volatile costs of fossil fuels to ratepayers. That's the beauty of monopoly.

    Oil is largely controlled by OPEC and Mideast dictators and royals. The whole reason oil prices have fallen is so that Saudi Arabia can try to push American oil producers out. With Iran's oil soon to hit the world market, watch oil fall even further.

    Now, all fossil fuels enjoy significant government subsidies -- from use of cheap, government-developed water to railroads that get cheap loans to elimination of severance taxes and government-built pipelines. Obama has proposed eliminating those subsidies, but the GOP is opposed because of "jobs" and "profits."

  • stochra Holladay, UT
    Aug. 11, 2015 11:24 a.m.

    JCS - For what it's worth, the proposal in the op-ed is to repeal the EPA program and replace it with one that doesn't involve EPA.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 11, 2015 9:43 a.m.

    Rep. Inglis is to be commended for challenging his own party to think. However, he represents a small minority within its ranks. Despite the optimism of his lede sentence, few in the GOP have made it to the step of looking for solutions. Most are still endlessly mired in two ideological tar pits: 1) a rejection of climate science and the elevation of science denialism (not just climate, but also evolution) to a litmus test for conservatism, and 2) a reflex rejection of any initiative associated with President Obama. Until they move past these two obstacles, the GOP will only be the "Party of No" and never be the party of innovative ideas.

    When it comes to climate, the GOP is still at denial. They will have to work their way through anger, depression, bargaining, and acceptance before they can start to think about solving the problem in a way that conforms to conservative principles. And there are conservative solutions—policies that achieve an end while maximizing freedom, exploiting free markets, and minimizing government. But most of the GOP would rather "Just Say No" than think about them.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 11, 2015 9:24 a.m.

    Giving "credits" or "incentives" is not an option. America is bankrupt and China has no more money to lend.

    Raising taxes or charging "fees" is not an option. Businesses will just pass those taxes or "fees" on to the consumer. The consumer, who is working as a greeter at Wal-Mart, because all of the manufacturing jobs have been driven off-shore by over-regulating industry, has no money to pay those passed on taxes and "fees",

    Just as petroleum replaced whale oil and kerosene replaced candles, new methods and products will eventually replace coal and oil. We're not there yet. Solar is not cost effective for the little guy who is under-employed. He just can't afford to buy $10,000 or $20,000 worth of solar panels and "nasty" lead-cell batteries.

    It's time to back off and let the market drive technology instead of letting uneducated and uninformed politicians levy taxes to fund their pet projects.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Aug. 11, 2015 8:37 a.m.

    This is literally nothing but empty talking points. It is hot air. It offers absolutely no ideas, no proposals, no initiatives, nothing, nothing, nothing. Except basically three political propaganda points that are 100% free of substance. Is this the Republican program? And did the editors even bother to read this drivel before publishing it, or did they merely take the RNC work product and obey when asked to print it? I am astounded! This is a poor way to conduct dialogue on serious issues.

  • John Charity Spring Back Home in Davis County, UT
    Aug. 11, 2015 6:57 a.m.

    No reasonable person can deny that the consequences of EPA over regulation have been catastrophic. The EPA's use of scare tactics to attack private industry have been devastating to the economy.

    When the energy sector suffers, the poor and minority groups take the brunt of the damage. As an example, one need only look at the Hopi Indians.

    The public must resist the EPA's efforts to become a law unto itself. Just as the people eventually deposed Kaiser Wilhelm II, Americans must likewise bring the EPA under control.

  • PeanutGallery Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 11, 2015 4:11 a.m.

    A rising carbon fee/tax is NOT a market-based approach, it is an artificial corruption of economic principles. When alternative energy sources become reliable and economical enough ON THEIR OWN, people will adopt them willingly. Forcing these new sources, or further taxing the current ones, only hurts everyone. Except, of course, the alternative energy companies and their lobbyists who are trying to get the government to force us.