EPA Launches Massive Power Grab
Yes, representative government is so old fashioned. It’s much better to have unelected bureaucrats making incredibly important and far-reaching decisions about our environment and economy without the meddling people having a say in anything.
The US government has declared that greenhouse gases threaten human health.
The move could allow the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to order cuts in emissions without the approval of Congress.
EPA administrator Lisa Jackson said the agency was now “authorised and obligated to make reasonable efforts” to cut greenhouse gases.
I don’t think the left really understands how far they are over-reaching here until the average guy trys to buy a lawnmower next summer and finds it it will cost him 30% more and a special permit.
2010 will be an earthquake landslide back to the GOP.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 07, 2009 at 1600 hrs
Unbelievable and absurd. Every industry, every small business, every home owner will be adversely affected. We’ll be paying more and getting less. Industry will flee the country while we freeze in the dark.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 07, 2009 at 1645 hrs
If I didn’t know better,....
Wait a minute, I do know better, and I think the effects listed by Elrond are precisely what the Gorebal “Warming” acolytes want.
Posted by steveegg on December 07, 2009 at 1650 hrs
I assume Congress can pass a bill any time they want to eliminate the EPA, and override any President foolish enough to veto such a bill.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 07, 2009 at 1913 hrs
In the wake of all that’s come out they’re still pushing this? It has nothing to do with “Greenhouse Gases”, or anything else other than control. Soon enough people, soon enough, Liberty will be but a fond memory.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 07, 2009 at 1934 hrs
The site below has its agenda, but taking some of the recommended steps does save money too. I wish I could get my ceiling packed to R100.
Calculate your own carbon footprint, and/or that of your household
http://www.nature.org/initiatives/climatechange/calculator/Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 07, 2009 at 1939 hrs
when (alleged) AGW legislation or regulation is implemented, it’s a no-lose for the acolytes. If there is no warming, they will say, “See? We saved you.” If it warms they will say, “It would have been so much worse without us. Give up more of your Liberty and we will save you even more.”
And the masses will applaud and clamor for Bread and Circuses.
We are doomed.
Posted by Steve on December 07, 2009 at 2023 hrs
I agree with Austin 2010 will be a landslide, I think the left is also aware no doubt why its an all out blitz to shove it on us now.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 07, 2009 at 2031 hrs
Gives new meaning to the old [URL=“http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114885/”]Whitney Houston movie[/URL].
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 07, 2009 at 2043 hrs
And what good is a Conservative “landslide” if any of this is allowed to stand? There are so many things that have been passed that we have accepted as inevitable and are no longer on our radar that need to be revoked which have already restricted our freedoms and liberty, and have cost us billions in wasted aid. We have to get this country back on course, and start taking steps to make every citizen a productive contributor to the betterment of this nation, rather than worrying about bettering everyone else’s situation in the world.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 07, 2009 at 2111 hrs
Yes, representative government is so old fashioned.
Democrats have been trying, of course, but Republicans have decided to filibuster everything stronger than declaring National Kitties and Puppies Day.
It’s hard to do the people’s business when some of the players are assholes.
Posted by folkbum on December 07, 2009 at 2227 hrs
So… it’s acceptable to you to throw away representative government when you don’t get you way?
Telling…
Posted by Owen on December 07, 2009 at 2231 hrs
I wish I could get my ceiling packed to R100.
JPenterman - unfortunately, if you did, that other greenhouse gas, H2O, would likely collect and rot out your roof!
It’s basic physics, actions have an equal and opposite reaction. And while we’re on the subject - science, when not being manipulated, will tell us that high CO2 levels will be countered by aggressive vegetation growth and a natural re-balance will occur. Arrogant humans have nothing to do with the equation.
BTW, I have no objection to people making their own decisions on the basis of saving themselves money. Just don’t use force and government coercion to have others do it on the basis of flawed science.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 07, 2009 at 2246 hrs
So… it’s acceptable to you to throw away representative government when you don’t get you way?
Well, no, it’s that Republicans had an opportunity to shape US energy policy, in particular relating to CO2, and they threw it away in favor of childishness.
But, hey, not my party. I suppose I shouldn’t be telling them what to do.
Also: I think the people elected Obama. and he made no secret of wanting to regulate carbon emissions.
Posted by folkbum on December 07, 2009 at 2249 hrs
OK, let’s break that down a bit, shall we?
Well, no, it’s that Republicans had an opportunity to shape US energy policy, in particular relating to CO2, and they threw it away in favor of childishness.
No, they chose an energy policy with which you disagree. If it makes you feel any better, I disagree with it too, but it’s still not worth casting away our model of government.
Also: I think the people elected Obama. and he made no secret of wanting to regulate carbon emissions.
Yes. They also elected a Congress. Obama is not a dictator no matter how much you want him to be.
I wonder if you would have the same reaction if this were Bush’s EPA wanting to regulate environmental education in our public schools without the consent of Congress.
Posted by Owen on December 07, 2009 at 2254 hrs
Yes. They also elected a Congress.
The vast majority of whom also want to regulate CO2. Not to mention, the vast majority of the people do, too.
Maybe Republicans should have considered the ramifications of putting lefties like Roberts and Alito on the court that granted the EPA the authority to do what they announced today they would do.
Posted by folkbum on December 07, 2009 at 2322 hrs
So you’re just fine with unelected bureaucrats regulating every aspect of your life? You do realize that you emit CO2, right?
Your willingness to piss away your freedom is almost as pathetic as it is predictable.
Posted by Owen on December 07, 2009 at 2326 hrs
A little more history might be needed: Thoughts about this Supreme Court decision that enabled this chain of events? NYTIMES.com, April 2, 2007.
“Justices Say E.P.A. Has Power to Act on Harmful Gases”
5 - 4 decision: The Supreme Court ruled that “the [EPA] has the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases in automobile emissions” and the court went on to say that “the agency could not sidestep its authority to regulate the greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change unless it could provide a scientific basis for its refusal.” Massachusetts met the standing rule (basically 5-4) by arguing global warming would affect it’s coastline and industry. No, the Bush GOP was not happy with this.The 2nd decision was 9-0 (9-0) The court adopted a broad reading of the EPA’s authority “over factories and power plants that add capacity or make renovations that increase emissions of air pollutants.” (Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corp., No. 05-848)
Coincidently, on ocean water near Massachusetts: The Associated Press reported on Nov 12, 2009: The journal Marine Ecology Progress Series reported the work of four NOAA biologists who have been analyzing water temperature trends from North Carolina to the Canadian border off Maine from 1968 to 2007. From there they studied fish survey data collected each spring and evaluated where fish were caught and in what abundance: Of 36 stocks studied, 24 stocks had changed their distribution range in unison with a (on average) 1/2 degree rise in water temperatures that (in general) occurred off the Northeast from 1970 to 2009.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 07, 2009 at 2356 hrs
@ folkbum re: #16
I find it interesting that the results of the poll seem to indicate that people really have no clue about how this all fits together. The first question in the poll indicates that over half of those polled think that man has nothing to do with global warming (23% natural changes + 31% unproven theory). Then it goes on to show that they think we can have an effect by reducing CO2 emissions? There is an apparent disconnect here that I find unresolvable.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 08, 2009 at 0631 hrs
What part of “Protection” do you kids not understand?
Breathe deeply into a paper bag. Stop before you pull one of your hyperbole muscles. Your eyes are getting just the tiniest bit buggy. Perhaps you could step out for a big steaming cup of perspective, for cryin’ out loud.
You sound like Chicken Little.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 08, 2009 at 0647 hrs
It’s hard to do the people’s business when some of the players are assholes.
First things first. Almost ALL of the players are assholes. The left used the same obstruction tactics all through the Bush presidency… Try again.
The Republicans have not acted on CO2 because IT IS NOT A POLLUTANT. How can the product of respiration be a pollutant? Secondarily, how , if CO2 is a pollutant, can the government determine which CO2 emissions need to be regulated? It is okay when humans and animals breathe, but when Charter Steel burns natural gas to heat their billet furnace, it isn’t? How is that logical to you?
Of the greenhouse gasses, CO2 is the one we need to be the least worried about. If we are worried about it, why don’t we start a national initiative to plant trees? If a single tree can sequester as much as 50lbs of carbon per year, why don’t we make an effort to reduce “global warming” by doing something that will not have an adverse effect on business and our economy, which, incidentally is not doing too well to begin with, like planting some trees. It would even be a great make-work project for some of our unemployed.
Oh, wait thats right. Once we saw that planting millions of trees has no effect on the climate the “science” will prove that further, potentially economically devastating, policies will need to be pursued. This agenda has become so transparent as to be nauseating.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 08, 2009 at 0652 hrs
The left used the same obstruction tactics all through the Bush presidency… Try again.
Yeah, except not. Every major piece of Bush-era legislation, from Medicare D to tax cuts to NCLB, passed with less than 60 votes in the Senate. Here it is in handy graphical form. (And if you want to talk judges, we can do that, too.)
There is an apparent disconnect here that I find unresolvable.
There are plenty of reasons to support reducing pollutant emissions besides prevention of or temperance of global warming. One of the more amazing things to me about this debate—particularly its most partisan aspects—is the way some people insist that the world isn’t getting any warmer and therefore it’s okay to keep spewing a bunch of nasty stuff into the air. Anyone want to talk about trends in children’s asthma?
Posted by folkbum on December 08, 2009 at 0708 hrs
*groans as my head gets ready to explode*
Here we go, let’s do it for the children because the increase is CO2 is a leading cause of asthma. Is that what you are saying folkbum? I would LOVE to see the study that lead you to that intellectual leap
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 08, 2009 at 0712 hrs
I was on the fence as it relates to the whole global warming thing, but the leaked emails showing the intent of the parties pushed me over to the other side.
Reminds me a lot of Weapons of Mass destruction in Iraq. I thought they were there. But after seven years of occupation, I have to admit they weren’t there. Or at least in any amounts that would cause us harm. And the pretext for the Iraq war was proven false. But we’ve gone through a lot of damage because of it. That’s on Bush.
I fear “CO2” and “Global Warming” are the left’s version of WMD’s. It is the pretext for a lot of stuff that could wreck the Wisconsin and US economy. But the libs don’t care whether it exists or not. They’ll use their cooked data as the “pretext” for the attack.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 08, 2009 at 0904 hrs
Reminds me a lot of Weapons of Mass destruction in Iraq. I thought they were there. But after seven years of occupation, I have to admit they weren’t there. Or at least in any amounts that would cause us harm. And the pretext for the Iraq war was proven false. But we’ve gone through a lot of damage because of it. That’s on Bush.
I fear “CO2” and “Global Warming” are the left’s version of WMD’s. It is the pretext for a lot of stuff that could wreck the Wisconsin and US economy. But the libs don’t care whether it exists or not. They’ll use their cooked data as the “pretext” for the attack.
Thats a pretty good analogy, and one that I hadn’t thought of. Thanks!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 08, 2009 at 0933 hrs
The earth could be getting warmer, every few thousand years the temperture fluctuates one or two degrees, maybe the methane from the dinasaurs had some effect, or the emissions from the tar pits, and spun the planet into the great ice age.
Guess it should not surprise us after all some people did buy a pet rock.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 08, 2009 at 1101 hrs
Breathe deeply into a paper bag. Stop before you pull one of your hyperbole muscles. Your eyes are getting just the tiniest bit buggy. Perhaps you could step out for a big steaming cup of perspective, for cryin’ out loud.
What a jackass.
Our atmosphere is a little bigger than a paper bag, and it contains plants to create oxygen from CO2.
Your second breath into a paper bag is ten times worse than the effect of all carbon emitted by humans into our atmosphere ever.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 08, 2009 at 1309 hrs
Democrats have been trying, of course, but Republicans have decided to filibuster everything stronger than declaring National Kitties and Puppies Day.
Republicans don’t have the ability to filibuster.
Anyone want to talk about trends in children’s asthma?
there is no link between carbon dioxide and asthma. Anything else you want to discuss?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 08, 2009 at 1315 hrs
There are plenty of reasons to support reducing pollutant emissions besides prevention of or temperance of global warming. One of the more amazing things to me about this debate—particularly its most partisan aspects—is the way some people insist that the world isn’t getting any warmer and therefore it’s okay to keep spewing a bunch of nasty stuff into the air. Anyone want to talk about trends in children’s asthma?
CO2 is not “nasty stuff”, for God’s sake green plants require it for photosynthesis.
Lets talk about children’s asthma rates… CO2 does not cause asthma, good talk.
The fact of the matter is, that the environment has been getting cleaner for the past 45 years, it is going to continue to get cleaner. The destruction of all manufacturing and energy industry in this country is not an acceptable expense to as you say “spew less nasty junk into the air”. I assume the reason you would even use that terminology is because you have absolutely NO idea what “nasty junk” actually is, or to what levels we are already regulating the “spewing” of it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 08, 2009 at 1503 hrs
Republicans don’t have the ability to filibuster.
But they do with the help of a Democrat, especially an Independent Democrat who has been thrown under the bus by his (former?) party enough times that they simply cannot do it anymore ...
Posted by hsgbdmama on December 08, 2009 at 1530 hrs
The Left won’t be happy until we’re all back to using stone tools, migrating south when it gets cold, and wearing animal skins. And I’m not so sure they’ll like us wearing the animal skins.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 08, 2009 at 1614 hrs
Look, I did not claim that CO2 itself causes asthma—though the science is still out on whether there are cascading effects. My paragraph was clearly about “reducing pollutant emissions” more broadly than just CO2. Because the fact is that virtually every human endeavor that spews additional tons of CO2 into the air (from driving combustion-engine cars to burning coal to produce electricity) spews countless additional particulates as well, which we do know cause asthma. And asthma is just one effect of such spewing: You can’t eat the fish you catch any more because of mercury, if you want another example.
My point was simple: regardless of whether you think human activity has contributed to climate change, there are countless other ways that cleaner energy production and more earth-friendly technology is a good policy goal, and that’s not a Left or a Right thing. (The EPA, after all, is Nixon’s baby.) Reactionary opposition to such policy strikes me as being short-sighted, dumb, and primarily motivated by the notion that it pisses off liberals.
Posted by folkbum on December 08, 2009 at 1748 hrs
folkbum:
So then the issue should come down to, are the policies that would need to be enacted to lower the emissions worth the disruption to our daily lives and ability to compete in the world market, and not be influenced by speculation about the cause of any warming of the earth’s temperatures. Is that a statement you can agree to?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 08, 2009 at 1921 hrs
btw:
If you look at the proposed emission levels (85% reduction by 2050), those are the levels we were at in 1910 on an absolute level, taken per capita, at today’s population, they are levels we were at in 1875. Are you willing to put us back at the production capacity of the late 19th century? Maybe the Amish have the right idea….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 08, 2009 at 1924 hrs
elovrich, for one, the consensus of the American people is, and has been for decades, for more conservation and cleaner energy.
For two, turning back the clock on per capita emissions does not require turning back the clock on technology. Believing that requires, I think, a pretty dim view of American ingenuity. Or at least our ability to see what is already happening in Europe and Japan and steal it for ourselves.
Posted by folkbum on December 08, 2009 at 2157 hrs
yes folkbum, I know it does not mean turning the clock back on technology, and it is exactly what I see happening in Europe and Japan that scares the bejeezus out of me. Or do you think you will like living stacked cheek by jowl in concentrated urban areas that make mass transit a viable option over personal transportation? Those solutions are just not viable here, at least for the vast majority of fly-over land….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 08, 2009 at 2202 hrs
@elovrich: It’s viable, alright. But it’s also un-American and anti-Liberty.
Posted by Steve on December 08, 2009 at 2206 hrs
for one, the consensus of the American people is, and has been for decades, for more conservation and cleaner energy.
At the cost of giving up our large vehicles and larger homes? I think you may need to convince me of that. Unless there is a cost reason, we have not been exactly chomping at the bit to conserve for conservation sake at the expense of convenience, comfort and productivity. Mandating that we do it is NOT the way, allowing the market to provide what we want and demand is. And you can’t put a clock on that to force it to happen.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 08, 2009 at 2208 hrs
explain to me not mass transit from Ashland to Janesville is viable? or Florence to Prairie du Chein, or Hurley to Lacrosse? You MIGHT get one train every other day, if you are lucky, not exactly the schedule capable in a densely populated area
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 08, 2009 at 2213 hrs
Although, most of us won’t like to agree with the policy but that is not good enough a reason to do away with the model of government. It will land us into even a deeper mess!
Posted by monica on December 09, 2009 at 0701 hrs
Since CO2 at high levels is dangerous, how long before Oxygen is controlled, or H2O for that matter?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 09, 2009 at 1427 hrs
Look, I did not claim that CO2 itself causes asthma—though the science is still out on whether there are cascading effects. My paragraph was clearly about “reducing pollutant emissions” more broadly than just CO2. Because the fact is that virtually every human endeavor that spews additional tons of CO2 into the air
Look, the fact of the matter is that there is no legislation being considered to “reduce pollutant emissions”. The legislation that is being discusses controls and regulates CO2, a natural byproduct of respiration, decay, chemical reaction, and a necessity of life on this planet. CO2 has been declared a “pollutant” by fiat, and now the EPA is going to impose Cap and Trade without a vote on the floor of the legislature.
I am all for the reduction of “spewing nasty junk” into our atmosphere, it is the reason that clean coal and diesel applications have been created. The argument right now is not about whether or not we should put limits on “nasty junk” it is about CO2. The “nasty junk” crusade was back in the 80’s and early 90’s.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 09, 2009 at 1850 hrs
Total Entries: 19656
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 09:52 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 108
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/12/2012 01:49 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).