Pages: 1 2

Justice Scalia, writing for five justices, rejected that approach. ‘It is hard to imagine a statutory term less ambiguous than the precise numerical thresholds at which the act requires,’ he wrote.

Endorsing the agency’s approach, he added, ‘would deal a severe blow to the Constitution’s separation of powers.’

“The Heritage Foundation estimates a loss of over 500,000 jobs, a decline in average family income by $1,000 and a 20 percent increase in energy costs,” writes Simpson. “The EPA acknowledged that electricity rates will rise, but if we can hold out until 2030, they assure us that prices will fall after that. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce claimed compliance costs for the new rule could exceed $50 billion per year.”

As for NRDC, it “sides with EPA, claiming a maximum cost of $14.6 billion by 2020 with offsetting benefits between $37 and $60 billion,” writes Simpson.

Advertisement-content continues below

In the view of The New York Times, this amounts to a “big win” for environmentalists, by which they mean the left. But it looks to us like bad policy for America, as well as bad journalism by the Times.


This article originally appeared at and is reprinted here with permission. 

Pages: 1 2

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Don't Miss Out. Subscribe By Email Or Facebook