White House’s ‘Blame Bush’ reflex embarrasses them, EPA.

More than usual, that is.

It goes like this (H/T & links via Ed Driscoll and OpenMarket.org).

A memo from the EPA surfaced a while back that mentioned in passing that regulating greenhouse gasses to the extent desired by the most fervent global warming believers might have an adverse effect on the impious, too:

In contrast, an endangerment finding under section 202 may not be not the most appropriate approach for regulating GHGs. Making the decision to regulate CO2 under the CAA for the first time is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities. Should EPA later extend this finding to stationary sources, small businesses and institutions would be subject to costly regulatory programs such as New Source Review.

As this was somewhat alarming, once you translated it into Standard English, the White House eventually started a little pushback that no, they wouldn’t be junking the entire American economy just quite yet.  So far, so good: after all, you don’t need to be a conservative to know that the government produces a lot of unfortunately relevant documents that later have to be eliminated and/or repudiated*. Continue reading White House’s ‘Blame Bush’ reflex embarrasses them, EPA.