Pulling enforcement of the Clean Air and the Endangered Species into the debate over climate change.

"Carbon Cap Scams ..pull enforcement of the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act into the debate over climate change."

Among the proposals floated by the administration at the meeting last week was one that would limit the emissions cap to electric power plants, while also allowing a "safety valve" if the cost is found to be too high. The Senate bill has no such escape valve and covers emissions almost across the economy.

The administration views were presented by James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, and domestic policy adviser Keith Hennessey.

Among those at the meeting were Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri, the No. 2 House Republican; Rep. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, the ranking Republican on the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming; and Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill. All are members of a group of House Republicans who have been critical of cap-and-trade climate legislation.

The meeting was first reported Monday by The Washington Times.

The White House search for a new climate initiative comes amid growing indication that mandatory action to address global warming is highly likely, if not now, in the next year or so. All three presidential candidates — Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, and the presumptive GOP nominee, John McCain — have said greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels, must be reduced.

At the same time, the administration is facing growing pressure to regulate carbon dioxide under the existing federal clean air law.

"We are dealing with what we call a regulatory train wreck," said Perino on Monday, using language similar to that used by the White House officials during their meeting with the GOP lawmakers last week.

The Environmental Protection Agency has been told by the Supreme Court that carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas, is a pollutant and must be regulated if the EPA determines it is a danger to health and welfare.

At the same time, the Interior Department is under pressure to give polar bears special protection under the Endangered Species Act because of disappearing Arctic sea ice. A lawsuit also has been filed under the same law for more protection for arctic seals.

Together these cases would pull the enforcement of the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act into the debate over climate change. This is a "regulatory trajectory ... we think is fraught with peril and that will ultimately end up in a train wreck," said Perino.

---

Haase comments:  Why use better technology when we can just "plug up" the problem? It's like putting a catalytic converter on your SUV to drive to the park down the street instead of just walking ... it does not make sense to our current administration as much as it does not make sense to "true" environmental groups.

NO ONE should be debating "global warming" unless they are in grade school... our regulators and government have spent Trillions over the last three decades to track, regulate and prevent it. They already know how "bad" it can be otherwise we would not be spending "billions" every year on prevention (link here). Spending more money on lawsuits and congressional debates, DIRECTLY diverts precious time, money and attention from environmental protection programs necessary to fend off global warming.

IF they need the media "spotlight" on fighting "global" pollution and "current" environmental catastrophes... they may want to point their guns at the unstoppable sources from the industrialized third world countries that have millions of people dying in the streets due to lack of "environmental regulations" we have in the U.S. and Europe.

"Legislation based on newspaper headlines rarely makes for sound policy." U.S. Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., ... answers are not as easy as T.V., Gore or Hollywood portray or discuss. WE can continue to prevent global warming IF popular media and fear mongers chose to listen to the solid solutions in energy, conservation and waste options.

If the average American does not see the global food and water catastrophes we "put onto ourselves" through "buying" into green washing media hyped "bio-fuels" ... just wait and see what "taxing hot" air through "carbon trading" schemes will do.

Most environmentalist and economists who warned of the "bio-fuel" food issues were glazed over for a "rush on profits" and answer to the "popular media" on socially driven pandemic to create "gullible warming".

Our nations greatest have been fending off "true" global warming through solid regulations and environmental conservation for decades. If we remove funding from these organizations to promote "social education" of "doom and gloom" propaganda we will have no hope or finances for our future.

It is defined as a manmade media apocalypse.