Rounds Criticizes EPA Proposal to Radically Alter Ozone Standards

@SoDakCampaigns

Rounds Criticizes EPA Proposal to Radically Alter Ozone Standards

“EPA’s ozone plan could be the largest regulatory burden in history.”

WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), a member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), today at a hearing questioned Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposal that would dramatically alter ozone standards in the U.S.

“This hearing was especially important to understand the impacts of what could be the most costly regulation ever imposed on the American people,” said Rounds. “These regulations could force South Dakotans to pay to control ozone emissions that could have originated thousands of miles away overseas or are naturally occurring in our environment. It could impact the ability of businesses to expand and construction projects to continue, without achieving any tangible health benefits beyond the current standard. It’s not based in common sense.

“Once again, EPA proves why it’s necessary to pass my RESTORE resolution, which would bring much-needed congressional oversight to the sweeping, costly regulations being imposed by federal agencies. As a member of the Senate EPW Committee, I will continue efforts to prevent these dramatic, costly new ozone standards from taking effect.”

Under current law, the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ground-Level Ozone is to be reviewed every five years. The current standard is 75 parts per billion, set in 2008. Under EPA’s current proposal, the standard would be lowered to 65-70 parts per billion. These new standards could be the most expensive regulations in history, with projected costs of $1.7 trillion and 1.4 million in lost jobs. EPA is expected to issue a final ruling in October 2015.

Video of his questioning is available here:

27 thoughts on “Rounds Criticizes EPA Proposal to Radically Alter Ozone Standards”

  1. You claim, without any examples, that the man-made greenhouse gases addressed in the EPA Ozone Standards have no effect on humans. How about a simple hypothetical. Imagine a cute little white kitten asleep on a blanket in your garage. Leave your car running for five minutes, then monitor the temperature in the garage and the health of the kitty. Now, run the car for ten minutes … then twenty. Not a pleasant thought is it, especially for the kitten. Burning fossil fuel engines most certainly do effect the environment and the health of the inhabitants within. PS – You’re a USA Senator and you deal with USA issues. To use the example that pollution just blows into South Dakota from elsewhere so it’s not your problem seems like you’re the problem. PS … How much did American’s For Prosperity (Koch Bros.) donate to your campaign. They have billions of pollution dollars at risk under these new guidelines. Could that be a motivator for your “off the wall” comments? BURNING COAL KILLS FISH AND PHEASANTS

    1. Why don’t you look up how much was contributed instead of making baseless accusations?

      1. It’s a rhetorical question, Mr. Anonymosity. They taught us that in Vermillion in the Viet Nam era. I know exactly how much was reported (many shadow sources exist, also) and people reading this now wonder how much the Koch’s pay and they might be moved to Google it. You see, sir the first thing to know before you speak is who you’re talking to. Although there’s a very intellectual and informed group who post here, y’all are “low value voters”. That means you’ve made up your minds and spending time trying to convince you is worth little. However, there are probably young readers of this blog who’ve not made up their mind (high value voters).

            1. for rounds: a measly amount from americans for prosperity

              against rounds: Weiland + Howie = George Soros.

              lets consider the full context, shall we?

              1. A.F.P. is a subsidiary of Koch Industries which controls almost all the PAC’s on the list. Thus, AFP gave $4 million plus to Rounds and made sure he had a seat on the right committee. BUT, the new EPA regs are now law and Rounds has to answer to the Koch’s, who aren’t happy. Watch them cut the cash and give it to Noem or another lackey, if necessary.

            2. That’s absurd. AFP doesn’t “control” PACs – and the total amount isn’t near that. Please explain.

        2. Golly. You are smart.

          And it’s a really shitty rhetorical question when your point depends on the answer to the question.

          1. My question was directed at Senator Rounds, who knows the answer. That’s why it was rhetorical … because the one being asked already knows the answer. Glad you’re thinking, though. Have a great summer. 🙂

      1. Think about it, Scheiss Weasel…. why would I speak to those who agree with me. This is a job. There’s “high value voters” that read this blog and they pay attention to liberals. But you know, “When you punch bullies in the nose, you go where the bullies are!”

  2. Porter you communists just don’t get it! We don’t need no EPA. Businesses can self regulate themselves. We need more good paying jobs and there are some precious minerals in those black hills that need to be mined. Once those metals are surface mined the land will be restored. Government needs to get out of the way!

  3. Porter,

    Your hypothetical is about as anti-intellectual and stupid as anything I’ve seen you post here. Imagine this hypothetical, an airtight greenhouse (a real one with plants and flowers in it) and you constantly pump in fresh oxygen and diminish until you effectively eliminate the carbon in the air. For one day, then two days. Not a pleasant sight is it?

    1. ….. a greenhouse can’t be airtight if the plants are going to survive

    2. Go ahead and explain why a car running in a closed garage isn’t exactly what’s happening on Earth. Your’s is just a made up situation with no parallel on Earth. PS … I can always tell when you’re full of it, when you call people stupid. Go ahead, Mr. Science. Disprove 95% of scientists.

  4. Troy that was one of the greatest anti-global warming scenarios ever written. (Probably should copyright it.)

  5. Porter,

    Your rhetorical question was fraught with hyperbole and the logical fallacy of false equivalence. A smart person would know that, unless of course the person was overwhelmed by arrogance or their emotions. Thus, it falls flat. Rhetorical questions that are effective do the opposite.

    1. Saying something is wrong is without validity without proof. I’m RIGHT … if you disagree prove it. I COULD call you names but it’d just make you cry, again.

  6. i think rounds was not saying “man-made greenhouse gases aren’t harmful.” i think he was saying that the e-p-a method of slathering on a thick layer of regulation, and the costly mitigation effort forced down on business and paid for by the vastly increased cost of consumer goods, is a big waste of money for very little actual change in atmospheric processes, and thus is immoral to cram down on top of people. in a free society a lot of good government is helped by efforts at acting in good faith and with good will – once you squander that with these regulatory moves, you need to be an oligarch/dictator to continue to operate. we’re near or at the tipping point.

    1. Examples of costly new regulations to people who AREN’T polluting the water or putting water at risk of pollution? Got any? Sen. Rounds had none. How about you Mr. Enquirer? Regulations from years past have greatly improved atmospheric processes and water and I can list many. Can you give examples of what new cost to people and consumer goods will be incurred by anyone not polluting or risking pollution to our water? These new EPA rules are addressing oil and fracking who leave polluted ponds behind which leach into the aquafir. Coal companies who foul water within huge areas around their mines. Cheney gave the polluters exemptions to benefit his Haliburton Oilfield Services and now the exemptions are gone.

      1. there isn’t some guy out there named “business” who you can sue and make pay for all this stuff. every cost laid off on to business comes out of the pockets of everyone. so I guess the answer to your first question is THERE AREN’T PEOPLE who are unaffected by the rules. i know rounds’ overall reasoning on this, despite your histrionic blather.

  7. Porter,

    Just because you say “I’m RIGHT” doesn’t make it so nor does it impel me to prove otherwise. But saying “I’m right” supported by hyperbolic logical fallacies does indicate narcissism and arrogance. Your delusion of moral superiority and penchant to denigrate people who disagree with you makes you rather uninteresting intellectually.

  8. Thursday @ noon …. I’ve said my piece on this issue. Thanks to SDWC for giving a forum to the liberal side of the issue. AND, thanks so much to the “high value voters” (the undecided) who read the blog and are leaning left more and more. AND the young voters, surrounded and politically unfulfilled by “chronically contrary” conservatives. Good times are comin’ ….

Comments are closed.