Under questioning about the OMB document below, the One's EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson, said that "a finding that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are a public health danger won't necessarily lead to government regulation of emissions, an apparent about-face for the Obama administration." This is a reversal of her previous position that the EPA finding of carbon dioxide as a pollutant subject to the Clean Air Act would "trigger" EPA regulation.
Why the reversal - its unclear. What are the ramifications? I agree with the Chris Horner at the NRO on this, that Jackson's reversal in light of the release of the OMB document will have the effect of making it less likely that Waxman's Cap and Trade legislation will pass:
Without sufficient support from masochistic industry (to join the slavish rent-seekers actually behind the bill), Waxman-Markey won't pass Congress — maybe not even the House. So why should any fence-sitters support it now that the admiinistration has backed off its CO2 regulation through EPA? Wasn't the principal argument in favor of Waxman-Markey that "you'd rather be at the table while Congress is writing this than let EPA regulation open some devil-you-don't-know can of worms" (an argument that was nonetheless hard to accept for anyone who actually read Waxman-Markey)?
Well, no longer. Not now, with the EPA coquetishly indicating it may not write such a scheme after all. Any rational actor would take their chances with an iffy EPA, and then in the courts — especially in light of internal administration revelations, and given the climate-alarmism industry's arbitrary and capricious reliance on unverifiable and now disproven computer models.
Read the entire post. This is both a bizarre - yet welcome - turn of events. We will see how long it lasts before Ms. Jackson changes her position yet again at the behest of our thugocracy. Anyone care to bet on how long it takes for a horse's head to mysteriously appear in Ms. Jackson's bed?