Scott Perry Wants to Save the World... by Repealing The Clean Air Act

Could the dismantling of a crucial clean air act provision be the latest chess move in a hidden war against the environment? This episode exposes Representative Scott Perry's attempt to undermine the EPA through the Energy Sovereignty Act, a proposal to eliminate Section 115 of the Clean Air Act—a move that could spell disaster for our national emission reduction targets. I, Jesse White, pull back the curtain on Perry's political charade, revealing how his environmental policies fall woefully short of what's needed for sustainable planetary stewardship. It's a deep dive into the rhetoric versus the reality of fighting climate change within the political arena of Pennsylvania's 10th congressional district.

Forget the flashy headlines—let's talk about the silent but deadly legislative maneuvers that show where a politician's true allegiances lie. Scott Perry's career may be laden with sensationalism, but it's his inadequate environmental policies that pose a far more insidious threat to our ecological future. As I take you through the implications of Perry's Energy Sovereignty Act, I also offer a sardonic nod to the so-called economic 'benefits' such legislation might promise. Tune in for a candid, no-holds-barred analysis of the actions that could shape our environmental destiny.

Learn more about the Keystone Reckoning Project at www.keystonereckoning.com

Chapters

• 0:00 Scott Perry's Energy Sovereignty Act
• 12:43 Scott Perry's Environmental Policy Inadequacy

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:30

My congressman is just the absolute worst in so many ways, but let's just talk about one of them. Good afternoon and welcome to the Keystone Recording Podcast. I'm your host, jesse White. It is Thursday, march 21, 2024. So my congressman is Scott Perry. I live here in Pennsylvania's 10th congressional district at Central PA, and Scott Perry is my congressman.

Speaker 1: 0:54

I actually served with Scott Perry in the State House where he was the chair of the Environmental Committee, which is relevant to what we're going to be talking about today. But you may know him from one of his greatest hits, which is working to engineer a violent coup to overthrow the government on January 6. So and we all know there's a lot more to come out about that he has fought very hard to keep his text messages and communications from that time classified and under wraps. I think that as the Trump trials on these issues, those issues come forward, I think we're going to hear a lot more about Scott Perry. Scott Perry needs to go. He can be beaten and I think the strategy to beat him, the conventional wisdom to beat him in a lot of ways, is extremely fundamentally flawed and it goes to a bigger problem that Democrats have in these kinds of districts. But that's a discussion for another day. Instead of looking at the political monster that is Scott Perry, let's look at the true policy monster that is Scott Perry. So Scott Perry put out a tweet yesterday saying it's time to empower states to meet the needs and interests of their own citizens rather than the whims of EPA bureaucrats, joined by there's like five other guys there, including Rep Andy Big. So you know we've gone to crazy town.

Speaker 1: 2:14

I've just introduced the Energy Sovereignty Act to stop federal bureaucrats from executing environmental power grabs at the behest of those outside our nation. Sounds pretty serious, right, and he even got like a great graphic. It says, like the Energy Sovereignty Act, stop EPA bureaucrats. And then, like the EPA logo with like the little ghost buster circle, slash through it. I mean, like some intern in his office really went above and beyond on the on the Photoshop or Microsoft Paint or whatever the hell it is. They used to do this. But anyway, let's talk about the bill itself. So says the Energy Sovereignty Act, and this is now from his web, perry's website.

Speaker 1: 2:51

The Energy Sovereignty Act will protect the autonomy of the states over their own energy sectors by ensuring that unelected, unaccountable EPA bureaucrats cannot seize control over vital industries under the guise of emission reductions. The Constitution clearly reserves its power for the states. This bill repeals Act 115 of the Clean Air Act, which allows the executive branch to mandate emission reductions in all states to a level determined acceptable by EPA bureaucrats. And it goes on and on, but here's the long and short of it. This guy is so beholden to the fossil fuel industry that he's willing to take big chunks of the Clean Air Act and just roll him out the window, like the bill itself is great. The bill literally is just like repeal the following. Yeah, it's one of the one page deals. It's like repeal the following and it's section 115 of the Clean Air Act.

Speaker 1: 3:44

So I thought it'd be worth looking at what is section 115 of the Clean Air Act and why does it matter and why should we care about it. So I went to a few different legitimate sources to get some information, one of them being the Brookings Institute, and it talks about section 115 providing a mechanism for emission reductions, with the responsibility resting with the states. The EPA would likely conduct a national rulemaking to establish a framework of emission targets, deadlines and compliance mechanisms that states would then need to convert into implementation plans. And the thing that's interesting about section 115 is it's never being used really for emission reductions. It's like one of those sections in the Clean Air Act that's there. It's never really been had its muscles flexed in this specific way and it's looking like now it's a way that actually could be used to mandate emission reduction, because what it allows the EPA to do, it gives them these, these kind of robust tools to go in and say, okay, if there is a situation where there is, there is an international impact on greenhouse gases and emissions that the EPA can then regulate domestically. So that's where, when he's talking about like we're being beholden to foreign countries, blah, blah, blah, it's basically saying you know, we all live on one planet and just because what we do within our borders, because it very much impacts what happens within your borders and if we are going to be a responsible global citizen and, god forbid, maybe even a global leader as the leading producer of these emissions, maybe, just maybe, we should lead by example. So it gives the EPA the ability to use that as a kind of a way in, and then what it allows them to do is come up with a national reduction target and then it gets a portion among the states so they can. One way they can approach it is to take each state's emissions from section 115 regulated sources, and then provide a uniform reduction target corresponding to the national target. And there obviously is a lot more to it, right? But what it's saying is it gives flexibility, like that's the key. It gives flexibility to be able to address climate change. That's what it is in a nutshell.

Speaker 1: 6:17

So, of course, scott Perry feels that that's something that just needs to go away. Right, because we need to not let bureaucrat unelected bureaucrats, you know get involved and do whatever. Now let's move beyond the fact that a regulatory agency like the EPA is has its leadership appointed by the executive branch. So you know, that's like basically saying you can't let staffers do anything because they're not the actual elected official. If that were the case, that means Scott Perry would have to sit down and make his own horrible graphics Over the EPA logo for his ridiculous legislation. So I don't think he has the time or the technical wherewithal to be able to do that.

Speaker 1: 7:00

So the unelected bureaucrat stuff is just ridiculous. I mean, that's what a regulatory agency is by default, you know, and it's funny that whenever he was the chair of the Environmental Committee in the state house under Governor Corbett and they were in Corbett was letting his DEP Department of Environmental Protection run rampant, letting the fracking industry do whatever they could, whatever the hell they wanted. And I know because I was there and had a front receipt and helped expose some of that corruption in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal and places like that. I mean, it wasn't just, it was collusion, it was corruption, it was criminal what they were doing. It's funny that when that happened, scott Perry had no problem hiding behind a regulatory agency there, right, like he was all for it. So when the regulatory agency does or doesn't do what he wants, it's fine. When it's trying to, you know, save the planet and do what it's designed to do protect the environment Suddenly it's bureaucratic overreach, right? Absolutely absurd.

Speaker 1: 7:59

One of the other things that's interesting about this and I think it kind of takes a lot of the factual wind out of the sales of his argument is that you know, a lot of this is a throwing a bone to the fracking industry, right, like that's just. You know, come on, that's where his brain buttered, that's where he's making his money, and there is no industry that likes to cry and complain and self victimize themselves more than the energy industry, particularly the fracking industry. They have turned it into an absolute art form. Right, it's the combination of fear tactics and poros and you know the the drill a well, bring a soldier home signs which are like real things in Western PA. They're real, those are yard signs drill a well, bring a soldier home. That whole narrative, like they've really perfected that. But one of the things that's interesting is and this is where I think it really twist the a lot of these republicans up and not is that because of the way the economy has evolved and market forces you know the things that they typically love it has actually solved a lot of these problems? Right, it is actually made. It's kind of made some of the actions by the EPA kind of defunct in previous Previous enforcement actions. So in a way, the system is kind of working the way it's supposed to in some regards. However, that still requires the EPA to have those tools in their toolbox to be able to, like you know, do their job. Scott Perry wants to just do away with that. Yeah, that's just obviously a bridge too far for him, and it's interesting to get you an idea of how real this is in terms of the ability to use this.

Speaker 1: 9:45

There was actually a Supreme Court case and I'm scrolling through here to try to find it, but there was actually a Supreme Court case just recently that allowed it was in 2022. The Supreme Court US Supreme Court issued a long-awaited ruling in West Virginia versus the EPA and that case dealt with the government's ability to regulate carbon emissions from power plants. And you know it's the US Supreme Court, even back in 2022 doesn't really have the best record for For progressive Causes or even like common sense causes. They're kind of you know, in in the bag and they, to the shock of environmental advocates everywhere, issued a narrow but consequential opinion that only ruled out one specific mechanism for slashing carbon emissions and that was generation shifting. And that was one of Something that first came about from the Obama administration and it was something that the following prices of natural gas renewables actually changed the way the enter country's energy mix went. Anyhow met the clean power plants target a decade ahead of schedule and was kind of Made move, kind of didn't matter. So that was struck down by the court, but the six member majority six not five ruled that the EPA's proposed use in that instance, overstepped its authority of the Clean Air Act. However, this ruling Did not address or eliminate any other carbon cutting approaches in the Clean Air Act, unlike, you know, the ruling in Dobbs where they overturn Roe v Wade you know it was kind of this far-reaching, you know, symbolic thing or you know comprehensive, you know kind of ban. This actually explicitly left room For the EPA to use these other pieces of the Clean Air Act, specifically section like section 115, to be able to address the issue of climate change and through global emission. So that is really, you know, to give you an idea of just how far removed from the mainstream thought process this bill is.

Speaker 1: 11:55

From Scott Perry that this is something you know, despite all his cries of Unconstitutional power grabs and you know all that kind of stuff, which is, you know the fact that he is trying to Use the Constitution as a basis for anything is just, you know, sad, laughable, pathetic. Take your pick, but he's just again, I hope you're sitting down, don't wreck your car he's just dramatically wrong, factually wrong in what he's trying to accomplish. You know, this is just a a. Hey, look at me. Energy industry. I'm your guy. By the way, I've got a fundraiser on Tuesday, come and bring your checkbook.

Speaker 1: 12:37

You know it's ridiculous, it's so far removed from the mainstream. It's just a typical crying and complaining. And I don't know as a parent, as you know, in America's American with a microtom of Common sense, like I, kind of let the planet to still be here in a little while. You know, maybe not Scott Perry's version of it, but I think for you know, having the planet remain sustainable probably isn't the worst policy objective in the world and you know the Scott Perry's of the world just simply do not care. So just one little nugget of what will be many nuggets about Scott Perry and our fellow congressional representatives here in Pennsylvania.

Speaker 1: 13:17

That is just absolute garbage. And you know we have to keep an eye on these things because, despite all the big ticket stuff about a guy like Scott Perry you know the Fomenting insurrection and those sorts of things these other bills, these other things Actually matter because they're a good blueprint of where our elected officials are, what they're doing and how they're thinking, or, in the case of Scott Perry, how they're not thinking. And the only good thing about you know he talks about the economic benefit of this bill. You know I do have to agree with him on that, because designing ridiculous legislation like this does require those really cool graphics and that's definitely keeping an intern or somebody you know employed, and I think that, if nothing else, so damn the planet, but let's keep those graphics flowing. Thanks, scott Perry. This has been the Keystone marketing podcast. I'm Jesse white. Let's do it again tomorrow. Thanks,