Demand Proof From the EPA

When Environmental Protection Agency head Lisa Jackson announced harsh, costly new limits on coal-fired power plants earlier this month, she insisted the purpose was to safeguard the health of Americans. She claimed the new standards were based on solid science.

In typical liberal fashion, Jackson then proceeded, inadvertantly, of course, to cast enormous doubt on the whole process.

It will cost billions of dollars for utilities to comply with the new rules, the EPA admits.

But, as the Associated Press reported, “The agency said the investments would be far outweighed by the hundreds of billions of dollars in health care savings from cleaner air.”

Hundreds of billions of dollars? Says who? On what science – real or invented – did the EPA base its claim?

Similar propaganda used to justify EPA rules in the past has been found to be faulty, based more on guesswork based on an anti-industry agenda than on science.

But environmental radicals have found such claims to be highly effective. Who, after all, can argue against spending a few billion dollars to reap hundreds of billions of dollars in health benefits?

For decades, both the American public and Congress haven’t asked questions about the EPA’s health-benefit claims. They have been accepted on blind faith.

It’s long past time for that to stop. Congress should hold hearings on the matter – perhaps adding up the alleged trillions of dollars in health benefits and lives-saved claims made by the agency down through the years – and demanding proof.

Unless and until the EPA provides such solid evidence, Congress should approve specific legislation banning the agency from enforcing the new rules announced by Jackson. It’s long past time to stop taking the EPA’s job-killing claims on faith alone.