(for page 2)

One of the original authors of 1970's Clean Air Act, Rep. John Dingell, has this to say about the EPA's (and Obama Admin's) power grab:

Quote :

"We are looking at the possibility of a glorious mess being visited upon this country. This is not what was intended by the Congress and by those of us who wrote the Clean Air Act. We are beginning to look at a wonderfully complex world, which has the potential for shutting down or slowing down virtually all industry and all economic activity and growth."

It doesn't help that the EPA is illegally trying to rewrite the law to suit it's purposes. Instead of following the law they want to handpick which industries and carbon emitters to regulate. I honestly don't see how this can stand up in court.

The EPA by law has to accept public comments for a predetermined period of time. If you want to tell them what you think go here: http://www.americansforprosperity.org/stopepapowergrab

[Edited on December 8, 2009 at 10:22 AM. Reason : speak!]

12/8/2009 10:21:35 AM

Quote :

"An "endangerment" finding by the Environmental Protection Agency could pave the way for the government to require businesses that emit carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases to make costly changes in machinery to reduce emissions -- even if Congress doesn't pass pending climate-change legislation. EPA action to regulate emissions could affect the U.S. economy more directly, and more quickly, than any global deal inked in the Danish capital, where no binding agreement is expected. Many business groups are opposed to EPA efforts to curb a gas as ubiquitous as carbon dioxide. An EPA endangerment finding "could result in a top-down command-and-control regime that will choke off growth by adding new mandates to virtually every major construction and renovation project," U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue said in a statement."

So soon, anyone wanting to start up any type of business will be required to buy a Carbon Dioxide impact study and then get a permit from the EPA. Now that will help grow business, won't it?



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126013960013179181.html?mod=rss_Today%27s_Most_Popular

[Edited on December 8, 2009 at 10:36 AM. Reason : .]

12/8/2009 10:33:22 AM

So the pendelum has swung completely to the other side. 2 years ago the EPA conviently turned a blind eye to various environmentally careless activities and today it is being a hyper-sensitive environmental nazi.

12/8/2009 10:41:40 AM

CO2 cannot be harmful to humans
because we exhale it
????
Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine

12/8/2009 10:50:45 AM

hey i just got a job offer to monitor the pollution output of the local paper plant. yessss. 100 more redneck hick religious zealot republicans without jobs....YESSS. and they are rebuilding that same factory in indonesia at half the cost with 2x the carbon emissions and paper output!!

yesss!! at least amuricah is gas free!! moron is right. all the rednecks that have jobs in manufactoring will not only be out of jobs but can use that healthcare system they are setting up for them now! double bonus. and with all their free time to browse the internet, maybe they can find this place and chat with us now!

[Edited on December 8, 2009 at 10:53 AM. Reason : 3]

12/8/2009 10:51:56 AM

so tell me. when iran finally smuggles a nuke to some random place like tel aviv and detonates... won't this offset any effort we made to help the environment?

yet we don't want to stop iran from getting nukes. lose/lose scenario sounds like to me. unless you are blind and really think iran will never have a nuke.

12/8/2009 10:56:42 AM

i've never watched a thread go so enjoyably off-topic. keep up the good fight, pack_fudge!

12/8/2009 11:11:51 AM

Congrats on the new gig.

12/8/2009 12:29:17 PM

Good opinion piece in the WSJ today:

Quote :

"An Inconvenient Democracy The EPA aims to bully Congress and business with its carbon ruling EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said yesterday that her ruling that greenhouses gases are dangerous pollutants would "cement 2009's place in history" as the moment when the U.S. began "seizing the opportunity of clean-energy reform." She's right that this is an historic decision, though not to her or the White House's credit, and "seizing" is the right term. President Obama isn't about to let a trifle like democratic consent impede his climate agenda. With cap and trade blown apart in the Senate, the White House has chosen to impose taxes and regulation across the entire economy under clean-air laws that were written decades ago and were never meant to apply to carbon. With this doomsday machine activated, Mr. Obama hopes to accomplish what persuasion and debate among his own party manifestly cannot. This reckless "endangerment finding" is a political ultimatum: The many Democrats wary of levelling huge new costs on their constituents must surrender, or else the EPA's carbon police will inflict even worse consequences. The gambit is also meant to coerce businesses, on the theory that they'll beg for cap and trade once the command-and-control regulatory pain grows too acute—not to mention the extra bribes in the form of valuable carbon permits that Democrats, since you ask, are happy to dispense. Ms. Jackson appealed to "the science" and waved off any political implications, yet the formal finding was not coincidentally announced at the start of the U.N.'s Copenhagen climate conference (see above). This ruling has been inevitable since at least April and we warned about it during Mr. Obama's campaign, but its cynicism and willfulness still astonish. The political threat is so potent precisely because invoking a faulty interpretation of the 1970 Clean Air Act will expose hundreds of thousands of "major" sources of emissions that produce more than 250 tons of an air pollutant in a year to the EPA's costly and onerous review process. This threshold might be reasonable for traditional "dirty" pollutants (such as NOX) but it makes no sense for ubiquitous carbon, which is the byproduct of almost all types of economic production. The White House knows this, which is why earlier this fall Ms. Jackson announced a "tailoring rule" that limits this regulation to sources that emit more than 25,000 or more tons a year like coal-fired power plants and heavy manufacturing. Ms. Jackson claims this unilateral rewrite of a statute is a concession, but its real purpose is to dodge a political backlash while still preserving the EPA's ability to threaten business and recalcitrant Democrats. For now, this decision moves into the courts, and years if not decades of litigation. Yet the decision really is historic: The White House has opened a Pandora's box that will be difficult to close, that is breathtakingly undemocratic, and that the country, if not liberal politicians, will come to regret."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703558004574582284174773944.html

12/8/2009 4:16:17 PM

Quote :

"Armabond1, I read exactly what you said. You were trying to paint CO2 in a bad light and failed. The End"

That is not what I was trying to do. I was pointing out that CO2, in a very specific instance, can be bad for the body to refute a generalization. I believe I was successful in doing that, same as I was in pointing out that in certain circumstances water is also bad.

Are you really so caught up in generalities that you can't see that?

In other words, I was being a nit-picky bitch. Generalities are bad, people!

[Edited on December 8, 2009 at 5:40 PM. Reason : edit]

12/8/2009 5:38:10 PM

Quote :

"I was pointing out that CO2, in a very specific instance, can be bad for the body to refute a generalization."

Yes, and I pointed out the absurdity of your instance using simple water. It, too, can be dangerous to the human body if it is increased in the body.

12/8/2009 6:29:24 PM

Quote :

"will destroy the American ... standard of living."

Would any of you please care to explain this one to me? I always found this "threat" laughable at best.

12/8/2009 6:39:28 PM

so, you don't think that a major tax on energy will have any effect on the American standard of living? really? it's not like we use energy for anything...

12/8/2009 6:43:12 PM

Was that my question?


*crickets* *crickets*


I didn't think so.

12/8/2009 6:46:35 PM

my favorite is going to be when the liberals finally make enough 'laws' to control job creation that half their own party revolts from them, and all that's left is you whinning college boys on the soapp box endlessly defending your views you were taught from white suburbia without a single problem your entire lives.

lol. gonna be a big ole lol.

12/8/2009 6:49:01 PM

^^^ I don't think you understand what the definition of "absurd" is. The situation I mentioned is not absurd, as people have died from both CO2 and water poisoning.

Rather, what I did was show that something we do exhale CAN be a danger to human health by providing a specific instance. That refutes your over-simplistic statement that since we exhale it it must be safe. We also exhale trace amounts of Carbon Monoxide.

[Edited on December 8, 2009 at 6:49 PM. Reason : ed]

12/8/2009 6:49:34 PM

^^ Based on your profile, we're the same age and while I don't aim to make things personal that information is useful for my query. Where were you during the Bush years where he all but gutted the EPA and what he couldn't cut he merely placed in energy sector cronies? What about when e-mails were ordered not to be opened but rather treated like spam? Were you behind the Clear Skies Act?

12/8/2009 7:00:32 PM

The standard of living has been dropping (by this Cato institute metric) since Bush was able to put his economic policy into place, I don’t recall hearing the Republicans whine back then about that. If cutting taxes on the rich dropped standard of living, then a tax on corporations that “pollute” might have a positive effect, no effect, or a negative effect; there’s not really a way to know for sure because there are multiple variables at play.

In any case, the carbon tax is designed to push companies towards “green” technologies (i really hate this term btw, but it’s what everyone uses), that companies are now finding to be more efficient and profitable, not decrease standard of living.

It’s like when cars replaced horses, there were probably people who argued horses should still be allowed on roads because banning them would put horses out of business, which may have happened, but it allowed a better technology to flourish (and Henry Ford’s company went from making horse-drawn carriages to the horse-less carriage, so they benefitted from adapting).

12/8/2009 7:01:21 PM

Quote :

"The situation I mentioned is not absurd, as people have died from both CO2 and water poisoning."

yes, and the EPA isn't saying water is a dangerous pollutant, either...

Quote :

"Rather, what I did was show that something we do exhale CAN be a danger to human health by providing a specific instance. That refutes your over-simplistic statement that since we exhale it it must be safe."

My stance is far more than just "we exhale it." Pointing out that we exhale it is a way of pointing out that it is something that is all over our body. Hell, it's in our blood. it's hard to say that something that is supposed to be in our blood is a "harmful pollutant."

Quote :

"In any case, the carbon tax is designed to push companies towards “green” technologies (i really hate this term btw, but it’s what everyone uses), that companies are now finding to be more efficient and profitable, not decrease standard of living. It’s like when cars replaced horses, there were probably people who argued horses should still be allowed on roads because banning them would put horses out of business, which may have happened, but it allowed a better technology to flourish (and Henry Ford’s company went from making horse-drawn carriages to the horse-less carriage, so they benefitted from adapting)."

And, if it is the case that "green technology" is better, then shouldn't we just let the technology prove itself and win out on its own?

12/8/2009 7:05:00 PM

Quote :

"And, if it is the case that "green technology" is better, then shouldn't we just let the technology prove itself and win out on its own? "

Because Wal-mart is really the best retail store? Or Dell makes the best computers? Or Enron was the best energy company back in the days?

The idea that the “best technology” always wins out is as much fantasy as the idea that we can all work together very congenially for the good of humanity. Especially when you’re talking about an industry like the energy or manufacturing industries where old, out-dated, inefficient infrastructure is entrenched. Why do you think that South Korea has a better network infrastructure than us or cell phone systems? The telecom industry knows that we don’t know what we’re missing out on, and they’re dragging their feet, not because our slower network is somehow the better market solution.

12/8/2009 7:12:21 PM

Quote :

"Because Wal-mart is really the best retail store? Or Dell makes the best computers? Or Enron was the best energy company back in the days?"

if the tech is really saving money, then you'd have to be an idiot NOT to use it, right?

Quote :

"Especially when you’re talking about an industry like the energy or manufacturing industries where old, out-dated, inefficient infrastructure is entrenched."

Why do you think that infrastructure is entrenched? Oh, right, we grandfathered all our coal plants...

Quote :

"Why do you think that South Korea has a better network infrastructure than us or cell phone systems?"

Because of the telephone company lobbying power?

12/8/2009 7:17:07 PM

Quote :

"if the tech is really saving money, then you'd have to be an idiot NOT to use it, right? "

Yes, or you could just be an old employee that is stuck in their ways.

But there are both idiots and curmudgeons present in all areas of industry, as i’m sure you know.

12/8/2009 7:20:15 PM

Quote :

"The standard of living has been dropping (by this Cato institute metric) since Bush was able to put his economic policy into place"

Only if you ignore non-wage compensation, which is pretty much the same thing as telling a lie.

Quote :

"The idea that the “best technology” always wins out is as much fantasy as..."

Investigations have been done, and to the best of our knowledge, never before in history has the conclusively "best technology" lost out. The Dvorak keyboard is not better than Qwerty. The ICE is the best portable power source for cars. And Windows hardware was demonstrably better (read cheaper) than Macintosh hardware.

It is usually when the government gets involved that obviously inferior technologies get their go, namely artificial oil in the 70s and Ethanol today, and even they always go away once the government subsidies do. I'm sure some program somewhere subsidized something that took off, when you throw around that kind of money that wildly you are bound to get lucky eventually, just as I'm sure some private programs turned out to be crap. The difference is, of course, they lost their own money while the government lost ours.

Quote :

"not because our slower network is somehow the better market solution."

Absurd. Given the distances involved, it makes no sense for Americans to divert the necessary resources for Peoria to have the same speed of network service as New York City or Seoul. While New Yorkers are clearly willing to pay an extra $40 for 100mpbs, the people of Peoria are not willing to pay several times that for the same service. That said, you have fallen victim to the "advertised speed versus actual speed". In all my travels, it was only ever in the United States where advertised speed has ever matched the actual speed. Hell, here in Cary actual speed exceeds advertised speed! A study was done recently and found that much of the hoopla is due to this discrepancy, as measured speeds in much of Asia and Europe were far below their advertised speeds, while in the U.S. it was much less so.

[Edited on December 9, 2009 at 1:05 AM. Reason : .,.]

12/9/2009 12:50:25 AM

Quote :

"Va. challenges EPA’s stance on global warming 2009, MARK GORMUS/TIMES-DISPATCH Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli turned up the heat on global warming yesterday. On behalf of the state, Cuccinelli filed a petition asking the federal Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider its December finding that global warming poses a threat to people. Cuccinelli also filed a petition with the federal appeals court in Washington seeking a court review of the EPA finding. Cuccinelli had no comment beyond a brief e-mail to news organizations. A news conference on the issue is scheduled for this afternoon. Gov. Bob McDonnell supported the moves. "The attorney general is acting in the best interests of the citizens of Virginia," McDonnell said in a statement. "The current federal position could have a negative impact on job creation and economic development in the commonwealth and should be reconsidered.""

Full article here: http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/article/CUCC17_20100216-222005/324766/

Keep in mind that Texas has also challenged this ruling.

2/17/2010 1:30:00 PM

Quote :

"Keep in mind that Texas has also challenged this ruling. "

Surely a state which is the hub for this countries biggest oil companies would embrace the theory of artificial global warming

2/17/2010 4:28:16 PM

Quote :

"GOOD BYE JOB CREATION!!"

what job creation?

2/17/2010 4:42:30 PM

What sort of jobs do non-renewable energy sources "create?"

2/17/2010 4:47:21 PM

What kind of jobs do highly subsidized industries create? Oh yeah, artificial ones.

2/17/2010 10:10:26 PM

Like the energy industry right now?

2/18/2010 9:24:26 AM