Someone will pay for this

This is amusing.

An Environmental Protection Agency proposal that could lead to regulating the gases blamed for global warming will prove costly for factories, small businesses and other institutions, according to a White House document. ... The document, labeled "Deliberative-Attorney Client Privilege," says that if the EPA proceeds with the regulation of heat-trapping gases, including carbon dioxide, factories, small businesses and institutions would be subject to costly regulation.

"Making the decision to regulate carbon dioxide ... 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," the document reads.

Someone, somewhere inside the Administration apparently didn't get the memo that the Federal Government must step in do something about this, costs be dammed. According to the Administration, that view came from an unnamed agency inside the Federal government.

I'm guessing that whoever wrote that memo is not long for his job. After all, who cares about science when there's a special interest group to cater to; I mean, look how the Administration caved in on Yucca Mountain- I'm gonna bet that the Administration has no plans of reimbursing ratepayers for those lost costs that were recovered from ratepayers to fund studies and move forward on building the repository at Yucca Mountain. It's only about science when they agree with the science.

Update- Environmental Capital has more on the memo and EPA's new position on carbon (endangerment doesn't mean regulation). It also notes that the Administration admitted that the document was prepared by someone at OMB and is based on a multitude of opinions from throughout the government. According to the post, the memo notes: “The amount of acknowledged lack of understanding about the basic facts surrounding [greenhouse gases] seem to stretch the precautionary principle to providing regulation in the face of unprecedented uncertainty." In other words, the EPA, and by extension the Administration, went ahead with a policy based on politics.