The Obama Administration’s message on how it plans to stimulate the economy and create jobs became a bit confused this week.

First, the Environmental Protection Agency  formally announced its CO2 and greenhouse gas (GHG) endangerment finding on Monday.

Then on Wednesday, a senior White House economic official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, stated that if the Congress did not move to regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gases, then the EPA will take a “command-and-control” role over the regulatory process in a way which would hurt business.

That very same day, President Obama gave a speech on the economy at the Brookings Institution in which he laid out his administration’s plans to create more jobs and help small businesses.

Which is it - helping or hurting business?

At GreenLegals, we have written out the ramifications of the EPA regulation of CO2 for months. See previous articles here and here.  Although all the ramifications of the EPA’s regulations of GHGs are not fully know, the consensus of opinion is that litigation will increase.

So, whether you believe that the EPA “command and control” regulations over GHGs will result in more lawsuits by environmental groups and plaintiffs’ lawyers against fossil-fuel industries. Or, whether you believe as Robert Reich does, that more lawsuits will be brought by fossil-fuel industries trying to limit the EPA’s regulations.

The one thing that is clear is the winners will be - - yes - - the lawyers.

Further reading:

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2009_10_01_archive.html

http://greenlegals.com/2009/10/epa-to-regulate-large-emitters-of-greenhouse-gases/

http://greenlegals.com/2009/06/epa’s-plan-for-full-employment-for-lawyers/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703514404574588120572016720.html

Video: EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syVJiiXoSSU

Copyright 2009 –K.J.Collins