NAT GAS Act: A Groundbreaking Reversal

Over at Red State, the Club for Growth’s Chris Chocola makes an excellent point about the NAT GAS Act.  An overlooked provision “basically lends credibility to the EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, something opposed to by many Republicans in Congress.”

There are two key elements of Section 403 of H.R.1380.  One is less than it appears, and the other is nothing short of groundbreaking.

The first is the affirmation that the EPA should play a role in fuel economy and mobile greenhouse gas emission regulations.

It is the sense of the Congress that the Environmental Protection Agency new fuel economy and greenhouse gas emission regulations for medium- and heavy-duty engines and vehicles…

A person who follows these issues closely noted Congressional Republicans have acknowledged as much.  Section 3 of S.482/H.R.950 preserves one national standard for automobiles, via the Clean Air Act.  As Heritage has pointed out, the EPA’s tailpipe rule is both costly, ineffective and bad for consumers.  However, the auto industry (and subsequently Congress) acquiesced to the EPA’s role and standards.  In other words, nothing surprising there.

The second, however, is astounding.

Such regulations should take into account the petroleum reductions provided by such vehicles and also quantify all greenhouse gas emission reductions provided by natural gas powered engines and vehicles.

In essence, the section affirms that reducing greenhouse gases is a worthwhile policy goal for federal lawmakers.  That is certainly not a traditional Republican position.  A quick search of the GOP’s Pledge to America reveals no mention of “climate change,” “global warming” or “greenhouse gases.”

Proponents of big-government have deftly used the issue of global warming, grabbing power and resources at every twist and turn while strengthening the central government.  Fortunately, some Republicans are beginning to see the light.

Earlier this month, Reps. Stevan Pearce (R-NM) and Todd Akin (R-MO) withdrew their co-sponsorship.  And today, Reps. Tim Griffin (R-AR) and Glenn Thompson (R-PA) did the same.  Kudos to them.

Take action:

Please Share Your Thoughts
  • Melvin Lynch

    Has anyone started uncovering whose pockets Pickens lined to get this stupid legislation in play? I wonder how much Pickens had to pay or was paid, in order to get in bed with the enviro nuts?

    I love all these idiots questioning people’s patriotism as they line their pockets off the backs of the true patriots. Same goes for that idiot Carlos Santana and his rant at the Braves game a couple of weeks back concerning Georgia’s passage of E-Verify. He’s getting paid and honored at the same time, and rather than saying a simple thank you, he goes off with his stupidity as his agent counts the dollars he got paid for showing up.

    Come on Americans!!!! Stop putting money in the pockets of these people as they are screwing you! You are smarter than that. Get into their pockets and take the money out rather than putting it in.That will help them think more clearly.

    • J. Michael Cook

      Whoa Nelly!
      The EPA provision is bogus, and should be deleted! However, Natural Gas is key to our energy independence!

      People in Louisiana & Drilling Industry need jobs more than any other state because of the Obama administration and Fed regs on Offshore drilling. You drive a car? or heat your home? You need Natural Gas & Oil.

      Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) has the potential to free USA from the need for foriegn oil once techniques for Compression & delivery to fueling stations can be perfected. That is WAY more realistic than stupid Wind Farms & Solar Power.

      Delete the amendment or Amend the bill to delete “greenhouse” gases. Fund development of CNG.
      Put in provisions for a return on investment to the taxpayers…. discounts to City governments that use CNG fueled buses and city vehicles. Same for state governments.

      Heritage does a great service most of the time. I’ve a got a nice Bull here, and he shouldn’t be gored, he should be groomed!

      jmc

      • Nathanael Yellis

        If Natural Gas is economically viable, the free market will fund necessary development and production. There’s no need to the federal government to provide the cash.

        Besides, the federal track record with this kind of thing is awful: We don’t support subsidies for gas vehicles. Subsidies, as a short cut for market investment and production don’t work. Consider the research here: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/05/Natural-Gas-Vehicle-Subsidies-Hurt-Consumers

        Let the market do its job.

  • knowsit

    Just more pad politics in support of a greener planet, while trying to line their pockets with tax payer moneys

  • http://HeritageActionforAmerica Carla Fawvor

    I am very disappointed to see ALL of the representation from TEXAS, especially the Republicans. WE DON”T NEED TO GIVE MONEY TO HELP THIS GROUP!! Corporate welfare is still very much alive in Texas.

  • cish60

    I don’t understand why the government feels they have to get their hands into this…let the market take care of this. If someone wants to start in the drilling business for nat. gas, let them. Why does our tax money HAVE to be involved??? I’m just not getting it.

  • steve wagner

    Natural gas great Government controlled natural gas bad .Remember ethenol?????

  • connie bierzonski

    Here is PA we have natural gas Marcellus up the wazoo. I’d retrofit my car if the stations were available to fuel up. Let entrepeneurs make the program work and make the big bucks. That’s fair!

  • http://www.good-gov.com William

    The enviro-nuts will never let natural gas vehicles or any such effort get off the ground because they are already saying that fracking causes environmental damage.

  • Jim Aberdeen

    Let the Free Market decide.

  • John Stewart

    The EPA (Feds) could screw up a one car funeral. This organization is nothing but a make work (and trouble) organization. Their motto is KEEP MY JOB AT ANY COST.