| Author | Message | ||
     Ferris_von_bueller |
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,189 2368,00.html The time for a second revolution is fast approaching. | ||
| Sifo |
This is the Executive branch overreaching and trying to strong arm the Legislative branch to do it's will. Hope and Change crammed right down your throat! | ||
| Court |
Man .... Out and out threat. | ||
| Reindog |
Hopefully, the Senate will call their bluff and force the EPA to unilaterally hobble the economy. The damage to the economy and the increased unemployment will be blamed on Obama, precisely when he will be most politically vulnerable. That will be a big step in making him a one term president. I suspect Obama is smart enough to not fall into this trap and he will make his appointee, Lisa Jackson, and the EPA stand down. | ||
| Strokizator |
They should lead by example and tie plastic bags over their heads to keep their CO2 emissions from leaking into the atmosphere. | ||
| Sifo |
The damage to the economy and the increased unemployment will be blamed on Obama, precisely when he will be most politically vulnerable. That will be a big step in making him a one term president. I'm sure this wouldn't go into effect until after the elections. Besides, forcing congress to do it gives BO cover. | ||
| Chellem |
I think this article is from April. Wonder how the 60-day public comment period went. And all this was also before "climate-gate" (I deeply resent having to call it that.) | ||
| Reindog |
The Senate doesn't react well to being pushed around especially by a tinhorn dictator such as Lisa Jackson. It is likely that the Senate will not pass Crap and Tax. We'll see. | ||
| Sifo |
Michelle, I'm not sure what's up with that April date. It may have been done by BO back then too, but it's in the news today... http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/09/adminis tration-warns-command-control-regulation-emissions /
| ||
| Doylejj |
In 2007 the US Supreme Court determined that the Clean Air Act dating back a couple of decades mandates EPA to regulate greenhouse gases unless it could show scientifically that they are not pollutants. This episode is EPA's effort to get Congress to back off or propose some other scheme than the one that is current law. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/washington/03sco tus.html?ex=1333339200&en=e0d0a1497263d879&ei=5124 &partner=permalink&exprod=permalink This game of chicken between Congress and EPA has been going on for more than 10 years. (Message edited by doylejj on December 09, 2009) | ||
| Sifo |
unless it could show scientifically that they are not pollutants. Talk about loading it! You cant scientifically prove a negative. | ||
| Swordsman |
What really blows is that once the solar cycle settles down and temperatures start to drop again, they'll all be patting themselves on the back. ••••••• idiots. ~SM | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Who in the hell does the EPA think they are? The instrument of the Holy One:  | ||
| Crackhead |
you leave something to congress, you get a half ass legislation. Anybody that has been to Maryland know how well the bay clean up is going. EPA should do their job and protect the environment. let them do their job and we will have the environment and food for future generations. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
His head looks disproportionate to his body | ||
| Pellis |
Congress just needs to de-fund the EPA. No money, no enforcement. Do I think this will happen? No. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
Put the crack pipe down | ||
| Johnnymceldoo |
Playing with fire. We havnt even seen whats in store from the FCC. | ||
| Odie |
His head looks disproportionate to his body That's because he thinks it's bigger than it really is......big head, no brains. You know what they say about big hands and big feet.......................... Big gloves and big boots.... | ||
| Whatever |
If you want to know how the public review goes, go to the source... www.epa.gov This will have the most accurate and up to date information anyhow... | ||
| Whatever |
Actually, promulgation on behalf of agencies that can't get their shit together is very common at US EPA. Many states and even some tribes have lost control of certain programs because of inaction either due to politics, economics or just plain incompetence. It happens a lot. There is a public process involved in any new environmental law proposed as well. All you have to do is find out what the CFR says the comment period is. It is published in the Code of Federal Registers and is made public both on-line and in print. The information is published and made available to any interested party... it is a fairly open process. Then if something fishy is going on, there is always FOIA... Freedom of Information Act. Any how there is no accountig for opinion born of ignorance. | ||
| Whatever |
Look at any of the major environmental acts passed in our history, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, RCRA and CERCLA. It is a public process that works fairly well... in my opinion. I am not a layman though so I don't go for these generalised and emotion based articles produced by the mainstream press. (Message edited by Whatever on December 10, 2009) | ||
| Jammin_joules |
This is the Executive branch overreaching and trying to strong arm the Legislative branch to do it's will. Hope and Change crammed right down your throat! Wait a minute, I am confused. What about this point: no one actually wants the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. Not even Jackson or Obama, both of whom have repeatedly stated that they would much prefer Congress to set limits on greenhouse gas emissions directly | ||
| Richsm2 |
HOPE(if you want to) and CHANGE(wether you like it or not). Is that how it goes? oh well it will become more clear as it goes(?) along. | ||
| Whatever |
Still dont know what all the alarmist paranoia is about... Are any of you energy industry CEO's? Do you stand to lose a couple of million on your annual salary? Do any of you prefer that Lake Erie has chemicals floating on the top that catch fire... Take a look at environmental history in the US. RCRA and CERCLA were probably the most expensive provisions ever passed to regulate industry "ownership" of hazardous chemicals... it actually became illegal to dump barrels of chemicals into Lake Superior... Honeywell did this regularly. Who is against clean air and clean water? Do you really prefer to have teratogenic and carcinogenic chemicals in the air you breath and the water you drink? I just don't get it? Please explain why this means the ruin of our government? | ||
| B00stzx3 |
Who do they think they are? Uhmmm...the EPA? Greenhouse gases are bad for us...thats not opinion like "is Obama a socilaist commie space alien?", its fact! | ||
| P_squared |
Greenhouse gases are bad for us...(snip)...its fact! No argument that it's a bad idea to leave the engine in your car running while it's parked inside a closed garage. I question how dangerous naturally occurring gases, which other forms of life require, and which make up such a small % of our total contribution to GHG's, becomes such a "clear & present" danger that the EPA has to threaten a "command & control" role. I question the timing of the announcement. I question the EPA when they attempt to keep things hidden from the public review of the Endangerment finding: http://cei.org/news-release/2009/06/25/cei-release s-global-warming-study-censored-epa But hey, if someone wants to believe that the C02 we exhale & the methane we fart is killing the planet and the EPA needs to step in so they can save us, who am I to disagree with the "science?" | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Still dont know what all the alarmist paranoia is about... Article 1, Section 8 Amendment 10 | ||
| Reepicheep |
The degree to which the EPA has abandoned good science is the degree to which they have lost conservative support. Conservatives are *for* clean air, clean water, minimization of resource consumption, preservation of things for the future. The difference between liberal conservationists, is that conservative ones can (a) do math and are (b) pragmatic. (and arguably (c) productive...) | ||
| Poppinsexz |
Still dont know what all the alarmist paranoia is about... How about the thousands of jobs that have been lost. The millions of dollars in lost revenue. The problem isn't the clean whatever act. It's the lack of balance. We're not talking about the wholesale dumping anymore, that part was pretty clear cut. Now we get to the "subjective and opinion" like CO2. It is now turned into a political tool to use as a means to an end. |
