By Ted Caddell

The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed carbon emission rule took fire last week from both Republicans and coal-state Democrats — who said it would cause economic woes — as well as environmentalists, who said it was an inadequate response to climate change.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called the rule a “dagger in the heart of the American middle class and to representative democracy itself.”

“The president’s plan is nuts,” said House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).

“President Obama promised to make electricity rates skyrocket,” tweeted Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), vice chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. “Unfortunately, this is one pledge he intends to keep.”

“There is no doubt that 7 billion people have had an impact on our world’s climate,” said Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.). “However, the proposed EPA rule does little to address the global problem with global solutions.”

Too Little

Some environmentalists were equally dismissive. “This is like fighting a wildfire with a garden hose — we’re glad the president has finally turned the water on, but it’s just not enough to get the job done,” said Kevin Bundy of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute in a statement.

“I think it’s properly ambitious — for the first term of the Bill Clinton administration,” Bill McKibben, president of environmental group 350.org, told The New York Times. “Given the melting Antarctic, we obviously should be doing far, far more, but at least we’re finally started, and that’s to Obama’s credit.”

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce straddled the issue, both criticizing its cost and dismissing it as ineffectual. CEO Thomas J. Donohue said in a statement that the rule will “add immense cost and regulatory burdens on America’s job creators.”

Meanwhile, Stephen Eule, a vice president at the Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy, said the rule would have little impact.

“No matter what your view of climate change, these [U.S.] reductions will be dwarfed by increased emissions in other parts of the world,” Eule told The Wall Street Journal. “For every ton of carbon dioxide that’s reduced in the administration’s proposal, there will be at least six to seven tons of increase [elsewhere]. Unless the rest of the world gets on board, this won’t have an impact on the climate.”

State Response

Politico reported that lawmakers in at least eight states have approved symbolic anti-EPA resolutions based on a model from the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative group.

Kentucky enacted a law this spring that goes beyond symbolism, seeking to bar the state from complying with the rule. The EPA has said it will develop compliance plans for states that fail to produce their own.

Not all Republicans and coal-state officials reacted negatively, however.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie made no public comment on the rule last week and did not sign a GOP-backed letter calling for the rules to be blocked. A spokesman for the state’s Department of Environmental Protection said the Christie administration supports the rule.

Christie, a potential 2016 Republican presidential hopeful, pulled New Jersey out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative cap-and-trade program in 2011, the same year he reduced the state’s renewable power goal from 30% to 22%.

Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn, a Democrat facing re-election this year, heads a state that depends heavily on both coal and nuclear power. It is the fifth-largest coal producer in the nation. Regardless, he came down firmly on the side of the new rule.

“I commend President Obama for confronting this critical issue,” Quinn said in a statement. “Illinois has seen the devastating impacts of severe weather first-hand with 11 natural disasters over the past five years. Moving toward a cleaner, more reliable and resilient energy system will bring significant benefits to our communities and our state.”

Teresa Marks, director of the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, told the Times the plan was reasonable. “This is not going to be the Armageddon that some people think,” she said