EPA!! Danger Danger!!!!!!!

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Navy1960, Dec 10, 2009.

  1. Navy1960
    Offline

    Navy1960 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +1,189
    Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases--carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)--in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.
    Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and welfare..

    Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act | Regulatory Initiatives | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

    According to Lisa Jackson this finding was the result of a a case from the Supreme Court....

    Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007),[1] is a U.S. Supreme Court case decided 5-4 in which twelve states and several cities of the United States brought suit against the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to force that federal agency to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as pollutants.

    The petitioners were found to have standing, the Clean Air Act does give the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases, and the EPA is required to review its contention that it has discretion in regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions—specifically, its current rationale for not regulating was found to be inadequate, and the agency must articulate a reasonable basis in order to avoid regulation.

    Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Specifically, petitioners
    asked us to answer two questions concerning the meaning
    of §202(a)(1) of the Act: whether EPA has the statutory
    authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new
    motor vehicles; and if so, whether its stated reasons for
    refusing to do so are consistent with the statute
    .

    “The [EPA] Administrator shall by regulation prescribe
    (and from time to time revise) in accordance
    with the provisions of this section, standards applicable
    to the emission of any air pollutant from any class
    or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle
    engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute
    to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated
    to endanger public health or welfare .

    We hold only that EPA must ground its reasons
    for action or inaction in the statute.

    VIII
    The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and
    the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent
    with this opinion.
    It is so ordered.

    It's a leap of faith and a BIG LEAP of faith on the part of the EPA to assume because of the above mentioned case that they can now usurp congressional authority in regulating ALL manner of emissions within this nation. The above mentioned case focused on the statue and as such because of the endangerment findings the EPA can regulate CO2 emissions from the tailpipes of automobiles , however, as this case has been remanded for further proceedings consistant with the opinion it is far from set in stone. The move on the part of the EPA to announce this finding one day prior the to Presidents departure to the so called climate summit was a pure political move on the part of the EPA and has little or anything to do with this massive marketing scheme known as MMGW.
     
  2. tigerbob
    Offline

    tigerbob Increasingly jaded.

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    6,225
    Thanks Received:
    971
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +972
    The EPA make a habit of this sort of thing.
     
  3. Navy1960
    Offline

    Navy1960 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +1,189
    What I hope people will gather from this bob is that the EPA is a one of the biggest political departments in the Govt. During the Bush Administration they had to be brought into court to actually regulate, and now, during this Administration they are not only doing that they are going one step further. So for the Administrator of the EPA to dismiss claims that her move were not political are amusing to say the least.
     
  4. tigerbob
    Offline

    tigerbob Increasingly jaded.

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    6,225
    Thanks Received:
    971
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +972
    I would be surprised if the EPA didn't weigh the political considerations before every single announcement / press release / opinion they make available. Like the U.N., the job they are doing is not the job they were put in place to do.
     
  5. Navy1960
    Offline

    Navy1960 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +1,189
    Exactly!!
     
  6. Wry Catcher
    Offline

    Wry Catcher Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    31,766
    Thanks Received:
    4,242
    Trophy Points:
    1,160
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +8,162
    Everything in The District is framed by politics, isn't it? Of course nearly every post on this message board is too. That obvious assertion aside, isn't the real issue clean air?
    Many on this board cry about the public debt, and 'worry' about passing it forward to our children and thiers - yet some don't think twice about the air we breath and the water we drink and how pollution may effect the lives of those yet to be born.
    We have a duty to our posterity not only to preserve the blessings of liberty to our children, but clean water & clean air.
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2009
  7. tigerbob
    Offline

    tigerbob Increasingly jaded.

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    6,225
    Thanks Received:
    971
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +972
    I agree, but the EPA's mission is to ensure that "national efforts to reduce environmental risk are based on the best available scientific information".

    In my view they have had for many years, and continue to have, a political agenda that all too often gets in the way. They are over-zealous.
     
  8. Navy1960
    Offline

    Navy1960 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +1,189
    Wry, you might be surprised though or maybe not, that most reasonable people agree that being good stewards of the environment is a good thing as do I. That being said Wry, it's my opnion that in order to be good stewards we must consider all solutions from all sectors of society . Peronsally, I think that innovations such as EV Cars, Wind, Solar, and yes Nuclear are the path to a great and free energy future, but thats just part of the solution. Taking this nation down the path of a single policy based on one single scientific conclusion, excludes the possiblity of innvation and disovery. If you force people to comply with something they do not believe in, then your never going to get them to believe in it. This nation has abundant energy sources. as well as people that are willing and able to use it in an environmentally sound way. It's only when we exclude people and rely on one set of ideas is when we all lose.
     
  9. Wry Catcher
    Offline

    Wry Catcher Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    31,766
    Thanks Received:
    4,242
    Trophy Points:
    1,160
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +8,162
    I agree. Even if we put climate change aside, and simply look back to the way things use to be, we can all appreciate the damage done by polluters.
    Not all men/women are of good character, which is why our society is ruled by law and those who violate the laws are punished. For too long the bottom line has superceded everything else, and that includes common sense.
    No one wants to drink 'dirty' water - yet many Americans who choose to buy water in plastic bottles think nothing of how the plastic bottle will be disposed (or consider that the water maybe no different than that which comes from their tap).
    We all know (and you've listed them) of what goes into our air (and, likely our water). Those who deny climate change do so at great risk to all of us, for even if the climate change is temporary - like smog or acid rain - it can harm us living today and those born in a polluted environment.
    Wouldn't it be nice if all scientists were honest? But given what I've seen in forensics, many (no matter how 'professional') can be bought. I put my bets on the scientists, at least the majority who seem to think human activities have had an impact on our environment. How anyone can believe otherwise amazes me.
     
  10. Navy1960
    Offline

    Navy1960 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +1,189
    It's all in how the message is presented you know, almost everyone will agree that acting in a manner that is good for the environment even in a small way , if that is seperating the cans from your garbage. However, where I tend to part company with the AGW community is when they take scientific data, papers, etc, and present conclusions then exclude any counter conclusions , and from that form policy to force people to comply with a set of rules based on that conclusions. What that does wry is stiffle innovation, and discovery, as well as does nothing to motivate people to become good stewards of the environment. The negative renforcement by mandate to force people to change will do more harm than good, when positive educational consensus is the path we must choose. Let me give you an example. We can all agree that our nation is way to dependant foreign soruces of energy, and as such it not only costs Americans in terms of jobs it also helps finance those groups who would take American lives through the purchase of arms on the global market. So in a way each time an American goes to the gas pump they are in a small way helping purchase a RPG or AK-74 for some group someplace. No given that , imagine if you will , a world where we no longer need foreign source of oil and can use our own because our domestic energy production has become so diverse that we not longer rely on just one source of energy. See what I mean, by taking a scientific conclusion and then leaping to mandates what you do is cut off that ability to innovate and diversify to the point where that becomes a reality. If you were to present a solution to the public that we can remove ourselves from foreign oil and do so with all technology and resources and do so in an environmentally friendly manner then you have something. I suppose my biggest contention with the AGW community is that it spends a lot of time favoring technolgies and talking down others, then shooting itself in the foot. Take for example the large solar farm between Arizona and California, set to produce a lot of energy for our region. Guess what, Environmentalists have construction held up in court because according to them it destroys natural habitat. That is the sort of thing that our nation has to deal with and mandates as a result of conclusions from the AGW communtity will only make ot worse and never solve the real problem.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

content