By Cliff Montgomery – Mar. 31st, 2025
Suppose for a moment that a few people in DC – pointedly, not millionaires or billionaires – started selling food products to such individuals as Donald Trump, members of Congress and other well-placed, wealthy individuals. Then it’s discovered that those products are naturally unsafe. One ingredient or another is causing serious health problems as these well-connected, well-to-do individuals fall violently ill. A few may even die after ingesting these products.
I think we know what would be the response. The president and Congress would compete to see how many bills, executive orders, etc. they could pass to punish similar people selling them badly defective items that are ruining their health. There would be a push to see what laws, if any, are already on the books that would allow the punishment of those terrible individuals who would put into danger the lives of such gentlemen and ladies as themselves.
Examples would have to be made of such dangerous animals. And under no circumstances would any of them wring their hands about “putting an economic burden” on the people poisoning them. Again, examples would have to be made.
But if the people poisoning others are multi-millionaires and billionaires, and the people they’re poisoning are not rich, then we hear from these – ahem, “representatives” – that we must not “punish the hard labor and innovation” of those wealthy job creators …
Behind the double standard is a cold truth: Lawmakers generally only fight to protect the people or things they care about – and all too often, that just doesn’t include the lives of most of their constituents.
Let’s look at how such an attitude works these days in practice, and how the current powers that be work to reverse a necessary, popular law that punishes wealthy lawbreakers.
“On August 16, 2022, President Biden signed H.R. 5376 (P.L. 117-169), a budget reconciliation measure commonly referred to as the “Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA),” declared a recent study from the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
“Among other provisions, IRA includes a charge on methane emissions from selected entities in the oil and gas sector, ” added the study.
“IRA amended the Clean Air Act (CAA) by adding Section 136. Section 136 directs EPA to impose and collect a ‘Waste Emissions Charge’ (WEC). The charge applies only to methane emissions from specific types of facilities that are required to report their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting Program (GHGRP), ” declared the CRS report.
“The charge starts at $900 per metric ton of methane, increasing to $1,500 after two years,:” the study added. “These values equate to $36 and $60 per metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent, respectively. The charge first applies to methane emissions reported in 2024.
“This charge is the first time the federal government has directly imposed a charge, fee, or tax on GHG emissions,” continued the CRS study.
“EPA proposed a rule-making to implement the WEC on January 26, 2024. EPA issued a final rulemaking on November 18, 2024. Under EPA’s final rule, fees from methane emissions subject to the final rule would be due to EPA by September 2, 2025 (based on methane emissions released in 2024),” stated the CRS report.
U.S. Representative August Pfluger (R – TX) is supposed to work for all of us – or, at least all Texans – but it’s pretty clear he’s bought and owned by Big Oil and Big Gas. The oil and gas interests bought Rep. Pfluger for $767,984.
The Texas representative earns more bribes – ahem, we mean, “donations” – from Big Oil and Big Gas than any other member of the U.S. House. Among politicians of all stripes, he comes in fifth – behind only Donald Trump himself ($2.1 million), 2024 Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris ($1.3 million) and two well-heeled Republican senators.
And he’s all-in with Big Oil and Gas. Not only do those business interests give him more generous “donations” than any other U.S. house member, but his top donor – BC Operating, which donated $52,800 to Rep. Pfluger – just happens to be “an independent oil and natural gas (i.e., essentially methane) company,” according to its website.
Now, reining in methane emissions is an action that simply needs to be done.
“Methane (CH4) is a hydrocarbon that is a primary component of natural gas. Methane is also a greenhouse gas (GHG), so its presence in the atmosphere affects the earth’s temperature and climate system,” admits the Trump Administration EPA.
“Methane is emitted from a variety of anthropogenic (human-influenced) and natural sources. Anthropogenic emission sources include landfills, oil and natural gas systems, agricultural activities, coal mining, stationary and mobile combustion, wastewater treatment, and certain industrial processes,” the EPA further explains.
“Methane is the second most abundant anthropogenic GHG after carbon dioxide (CO2), accounting for about 11 percent of global emissions.” continued the EPA, adding that “Methane is more than 28 times as potent as carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere.”
“Over the last two centuries, methane concentrations in the atmosphere have more than doubled, largely due to human-related activities. Because methane is both a powerful greenhouse gas and short-lived compared to carbon dioxide, achieving significant reductions would have a rapid and significant effect on atmospheric warming potential,” declared the EPA.
So, Trump’s own EPA freely admits that climate change and its attendant global warming are real concerns. But that doesn’t mean that the modern GOP has the integrity or the guts to do anything about it.
In short order, Rep. Pfluger pushed legislation based on a little-known procedure called the Congressional Review Act (CRA).
“This act created a legislative process that allows Congress to overturn—under specific conditions—certain federal agency actions,” stated the CRS report.
“In February 2025, both the (Republican-run) House and the (Republican-run) Senate passed a joint resolution (H.J.Res. 35, introduced by Oil and Gas property Rep. Pfluger) disapproving of EPA’s WEC rule,” declared the CRS study.
Both the House and Senate votes were partisan affairs.
In the House, 214 GOP members were joined by only 6 Democrats in voting for the measure; only one Republican had the integrity to vote against it. One Democratic lawmaker simply stated “present” when asked for their vote; and 3 Republicans were joined by 3 Democrats in deciding not to vote on the bill at all.
The Senate was even more partisan: 52 Republicans voted for the measure, while not one Democrat agreed to join them. Every Democrat in the Senate – 47 of them – voted against it. Only one GOP senator did not play the partisan game and vote for the measure: that person simply did not vote.
The measure then moved on to Trump, with a predictable outcome.
“President Trump [who, as we’ve seen, currently takes more “donations” from Big Oil and Big Gas than any other current federal politician] signed the measure on March 14, 2025, enacting the resolution (P.L. 119-2). Therefore, EPA’s final rule [which stated that ‘fees from methane emissions … would be due to EPA by September 2, 2025’] will not take effect,” according to the CRS study.
But that’s not all Rep. Pfluger’s legislation puts into play.
According to the CRS, “a rule subject to an enacted joint resolution of disapproval under the CRA ‘may not be reissued in substantially the same form, and a new rule that is substantially the same … may not be issued, unless the reissued or new rule is specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of the joint resolution.’
“It is uncertain what effect the enacted joint resolution will have on the implementation of the WEC. The CRA disapproval does not [officially] alter CAA Section 136, which directs EPA to implement the WEC. Accordingly, EPA may have to determine how to comply with Section 136 without adopting a rule that is substantially the same as the disapproved rule,” according to the CRS study.
Of course, we all know that the Trump Administration – as well as Republican members of Congress – will simply argue that no meaningful rule can be adopted, since any new rule must, in substance at least, be essentially the same as the stricken rule.
That’s how you kill a necessary, popular piece of legislation these days. Put it in a legal netherworld, insist your interpretation of law is the correct one and hope people allow you to get away with the legal fraud.
