Administration Warns of 'Command-and-Control' Regulation Over Emissions

[del]

I have never said a word about sulfer dioxide.

And there is only one of me.

Pay attention.

Good catch at the deflection attempt...

It's not a deflection. Any time environmental regulation comes up, the right claims it'll destroy the country with we have cleaner air and cleaner water. And every time, they're wrong.

yeah, i blame the leftist nixon for setting up the EPA and getting the clean air bill passed.

fuckwit.

 

[Polk]

I have never said a word about sulfer dioxide.

And there is only one of me.

Pay attention.

You may have not personally, but a lot other right-wingers sure have.

On this board? This is the first post where I have read about it, Polk. But then again you do project a lot in your posts.

Not on this board, because by the time this board existed, claiming that the regulations on sulfur dioxide would tank the economy would have sounded retarded, as the regulations had already been in place for over a decade (emissions trading, aka cap-and-trade, for sulfur dioxide was passed in 1990).

 

[Polk]

Good catch at the deflection attempt...

It's not a deflection. Any time environmental regulation comes up, the right claims it'll destroy the country with we have cleaner air and cleaner water. And every time, they're wrong.

yeah, i blame the leftist nixon for setting up the EPA and getting the clean air bill passed.

fuckwit.

A move for which he faced significant opposition from the right and which conservatives have been trying to gut ever sense.

 

[del]

It's not a deflection. Any time environmental regulation comes up, the right claims it'll destroy the country with we have cleaner air and cleaner water. And every time, they're wrong.

yeah, i blame the leftist nixon for setting up the EPA and getting the clean air bill passed.

fuckwit.

A move for which he faced significant opposition from the right and which conservatives have been trying to gut ever sense.

would you define bush 41 as a conservative or a liberal?

George Bush: Statement by Press Secretary Fitzwater on Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Regulations

 

[Polk]

yeah, i blame the leftist nixon for setting up the EPA and getting the clean air bill passed.

fuckwit.

A move for which he faced significant opposition from the right and which conservatives have been trying to gut ever sense.

would you define bush 41 as a conservative or a liberal?

George Bush: Statement by Press Secretary Fitzwater on Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Regulations

I would describe Bush 41 as pretty moderate. Go back and look at the debate at the time though. There was a ton of opposition from conservatives and industry groups saying the cap-and-trade for sulfur dioxide would kill the economy.

 

[Oddball]

In short, if Congress does not make Barry's cronies rich with Cap & trade, he will wreck the economy.

Dear leader strikes again.

It's even worse than that.

Both congress and the executive could rein the EPA in if they really wanted to.

Hobson had more credible options.

 

[Polk]

In short, if Congress does not make Barry's cronies rich with Cap & trade, he will wreck the economy.

Dear leader strikes again.

It's even worse than that.

Both congress and the executive could rein the EPA in if they really wanted to.

Hobson had more credible options.

Why would they want to? The EPA is simply doing it's job.

 

[beowolfe]

"If you don't pass this legislation, then ... the EPA is going to have to regulate in this area," the official said. "And it is not going to be able to regulate on a market-based way, so it's going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty."

That's why you shouldn't listend to Faux. Apparently, buried down in their article is the quote attributed some unknown white house official. (Faux probably made that up too.) But it doesn't say EPA would regulate in a way that's bad for business. That's Faux talking to you.

You guys need to wake up and exercise some intellectual independence. Also, as to the poll above, it's already biased in that it has concluded these are 'strong arm' tactics.

 

[Oddball]

Why would they want to? The EPA is simply doing it's job.

Fact is they don't want to....They want to enact even more stupid and draconian measures to combat a hoax than the EPA will take, while using the stupid and draconian EPA as a ruse to hide behind.

 

[Polk]

Why would they want to? The EPA is simply doing it's job.

Fact is they don't want to....They want to enact even more stupid and draconian measures to combat a hoax than the EPA will take, while using the stupid and draconian EPA as a ruse to hide behind.

How is creating a market for the trading of emissions more draconian than just setting hard emission caps?

 

[Newby]

Why would they want to? The EPA is simply doing it's job.

Fact is they don't want to....They want to enact even more stupid and draconian measures to combat a hoax than the EPA will take, while using the stupid and draconian EPA as a ruse to hide behind.

How is creating a market for the trading of emissions more draconian than just setting hard emission caps?

If emissions are truly destroying the planet, then why is there any 'trading' and any money chaning hands at all? Just cap emissions, no money involved, then maybe I'd believe their reasons were altruistic, even though the so called science is bull shit. They don't give a damn about the environment, they give a damn about their investments and all the billions to be made off of carbon trading, that's the bottom line.

 

[Polk]

Fact is they don't want to....They want to enact even more stupid and draconian measures to combat a hoax than the EPA will take, while using the stupid and draconian EPA as a ruse to hide behind.

How is creating a market for the trading of emissions more draconian than just setting hard emission caps?

If emissions are truly destroying the planet, then why is there any 'trading' and any money chaning hands at all? Just cap emissions, no money involved, then maybe I'd believe their reasons were altruistic, even though the so called science is bull shit. They don't give a damn about the environment, they give a damn about their investments and all the billions to be made off of carbon trading, that's the bottom line.

Because trading is a more efficient mechanism for allocating emissions than setting blanket caps is. Money would also be involved in an emissions cap, as fines would be levied against violators.

 

[WillowTree]

well here it is 3:06 PM CST and not one libtard has voted yay or nay PUBLICLY.




does this mean yay secretly? hmmmm?

 

[Polk]

well here it is 3:06 PM CST and not one libtard has voted yay or nay PUBLICLY.

does this mean yay secretly? hmmmm?

Someone performing their job isn't a strong-arm tactic.

 

[WillowTree]

well here it is 3:06 PM CST and not one libtard has voted yay or nay PUBLICLY.

does this mean yay secretly? hmmmm?

Someone performing their job isn't a strong-arm tactic.

so that's a yes? you approve?

 

[saveliberty]

Fact is they don't want to....They want to enact even more stupid and draconian measures to combat a hoax than the EPA will take, while using the stupid and draconian EPA as a ruse to hide behind.

How is creating a market for the trading of emissions more draconian than just setting hard emission caps?

If emissions are truly destroying the planet, then why is there any 'trading' and any money chaning hands at all? Just cap emissions, no money involved, then maybe I'd believe their reasons were altruistic, even though the so called science is bull shit. They don't give a damn about the environment, they give a damn about their investments and all the billions to be made off of carbon trading, that's the bottom line.

Newby, when addressing the liberals on climate issues you must use charts which have been data enhanced.

Polk, It is okay I peer reviewed Newby's conclusions, we're all good.

 

[Oddball]

Why would they want to? The EPA is simply doing it's job.

Fact is they don't want to....They want to enact even more stupid and draconian measures to combat a hoax than the EPA will take, while using the stupid and draconian EPA as a ruse to hide behind.

How is creating a market for the trading of emissions more draconian than just setting hard emission caps?

Now were arguing levels of draconian authoritarian central control over the whole population (except, of course, for the regulatiors), based upon a hoax?

Oh, brother.

 

[Avatar4321]

That's just hunky dory, let's kill millions more jobs!!!! God forbid you breath or pass gas, you will get your taxes raised. lol That's an idea, let's hang a meter around everyone's neck and see how much co2 they are putting out and you can just pay on a sliding scale according to your emmisions count. LOL

Are you seriously just worried about them killing jobs? Im much more concerned with the logical conclusion of this "regulate CO2" attempt. After all, one of the biggest contributors to CO2 in the environment is exhaling. How long before they start trying to stop that in order to "Save our planet"?

 

[Polk]

Fact is they don't want to....They want to enact even more stupid and draconian measures to combat a hoax than the EPA will take, while using the stupid and draconian EPA as a ruse to hide behind.

How is creating a market for the trading of emissions more draconian than just setting hard emission caps?

Now were arguing levels of draconian authoritarian central control over the whole population (except, of course, for the regulatiors), based upon a hoax?

Oh, brother.

Oh, I forgot. You're one of those crazed conspiracy theorists who thinks there is some secret scientific cabal.

 

[Avatar4321]

How is creating a market for the trading of emissions more draconian than just setting hard emission caps?

Now were arguing levels of draconian authoritarian central control over the whole population (except, of course, for the regulatiors), based upon a hoax?

Oh, brother.

Oh, I forgot. You're one of those crazed conspiracy theorists who thinks there is some secret scientific cabal.

Its obviously that global warming is a hoax. The fact that you've fallen for it doesnt change that its rather stupid to give up our rights and strengthen a potential totalitarian style government to fix a problem that doesnt exist.