BACT? Revolt! |

BACT? Revolt!

How do you spell “stupid”• EPA.

How do you spell “idiotic”• EPA.

How do you spell “monomaniacal”• EPA.

It’s official. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will now require that pollution permits be based on its onerous BACT standards or “Best Available Control Technology.” It’s an attempt to reduce “greenhouse gases” by 20 percent by 2020.

But as the Manufacturers Alliance figures it, this highly dubious EPA diktat — considered to be the most expensive ever promulgated at a staggering $90 billion — will cost Pennsylvania 351,000 jobs over the next 10 years. Nationwide, the job losses could exceed 7.3 million.

Ardent common sense-seeker James Inhofe, the Republican U.S. senator of Oklahoma, says the new rules would allow the EPA to effectively control the fates of not just manufacturing facilities but 260,000 office buildings, 150,000 warehouses, 92,000 health-care facilities, 71,000 hotels and motels, 51,000 food service facilities, 37,000 churches and 17,000 farms. Can the home hearth be far behind?

And all for virtually no effect on global temperatures that the eco-imbeciles say must be reduced lest we watch Planet Earth cook, shrivel and die.

The EPA is nuts. But the American people are nuttier if they don’t put a stop to this idiocy now.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.