EPA takes over in Texas

[Trakar]

EPA to issue greenhouse gas permits in Texas | Dallas-Fort Worth Medicine News and Advice - Health News for Dallas, Texas - The Dallas Morning News
EPA to issue greenhouse gas permits in Texas

By DAVE MICHAELS / The Dallas Morning [email protected]
DAVE MICHAELS / The Dallas Morning [email protected] The Dallas Morning News
Published: 24 December 2010 09:18 AM

WASHINGTON - The Environmental Protection Agency said Thursday that it will seize authority from Texas to regulate major emitters of greenhouse gases because Gov. Rick Perry and state regulators refused to implement the rules.
The move caps a long dispute between Texas and the EPA, which have clashed over the Obama administration's push to regulate industrial sources of carbon dioxide emissions.
State officials complain the rules will unfairly punish Texas and its energy-hungry industries when they take effect Jan. 2.
While the EPA makes the rules, states implement most of the requirements of the Clean Air Act.
The most likely practical effect of the EPA awarding permits instead of the state is that companies will find it takes longer to acquire them, said Jeff Holmstead, an EPA assistant administrator from 2001 to 2005.
"EPA takes forever to do permits," said Holmstead, the head of environmental strategies at law and lobbying firm Bracewell & Giuliani in Washington. "No state wants to be at EPA's mercy."
Other states have joined Texas in lawsuits challenging the EPA's permit rule and its legal basis for regulating greenhouse gas emissions. But only Texas refused to set up the permit program.


Forum copyright policy, to be found HERE, prohibits posting of pieces in their entirety.

~Oddball

 

[Mr. H.]

LOL. Ya do it our way or we take you out of our way.

That's rich.

Fuck the EPA.

 

[freedombecki]

Yep. Print more money, hire more thought police and revenuers. Spend a trillion. That'll show 'em who's boss!

 

[Dubya]

Yep. Print more money, hire more thought police and revenuers. Spend a trillion. That'll show 'em who's boss!

Well, if we can get Texas to stop sending us stupid politicians out of the deal, I say go for it.

 

[Trakar]

Yep. Print more money, hire more thought police and revenuers. Spend a trillion. That'll show 'em who's boss!

Well, if we can get Texas to stop sending us stupid politicians out of the deal, I say go for it.

Since the state of Texas sucks more tax dollars from the federal teat than they contribute, I hope they either clean up their house or secede.

Texas can no longer complain that it gives more than it gets from federal government | Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas and National Politics and Elections News - News for Dallas, Texas - The Dallas Morning News

 

[Oddball]

Always refreshing to see the envirocommies come out of the closet.

 

[Old Rocks]

When Texas stops the air they pollute at the border, then they are free to pollute. Until then, they either obey the same laws as the rest of us, or suffer the consequences the same as anyone else that breaks the law.

 

[Oddball]

Blablablabla...CO2 still isn't a pollutant, tovarich.

 

[Old Rocks]

And you still lack a brain, dumbass.

 

[Mr. H.]

Err... that article is over 2 years old.

Is the EPA going after ethanol plants?

Doubtful...

Factories that convert corn into the gasoline additive ethanol are releasing carbon monoxide, methanol and some carcinogens at levels "many times greater" than they promised, the government says.

Ethanol Pollution Surprise - CBS News

Obama's witch hunt is reserved for hydrocarbons.

 

[Mr. H.]

...he says while posting a 2 year old article. Ooops. LOL

 

[Trakar]

Blablablabla...CO2 still isn't a pollutant, tovarich.

The conservative US Supreme Court the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in in Massachusetts v. EPA, that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping emissions are “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act, and that the U.S. government already has authority to start curbing them.

 

[Mr. H.]

Blablablabla...CO2 still isn't a pollutant, tovarich.

The conservative US Supreme Court the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in in Massachusetts v. EPA, that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping emissions are “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act, and that the U.S. government already has authority to start curbing them.

And thus began... the beginning of the end. Of commerce.

Doesn't matter what age-old ruling, what matters is today. And today natural gas and its associated spinoffs is driving this worthless Obama-ladan economy.

EPA be damned. And they ARE a damnable bunch.

 

[Trakar]

Blablablabla...CO2 still isn't a pollutant, tovarich.

The conservative US Supreme Court the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in in Massachusetts v. EPA, that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping emissions are “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act, and that the U.S. government already has authority to start curbing them.

And thus began... the beginning of the end. Of commerce.

Doesn't matter what age-old ruling, what matters is today. And today natural gas and its associated spinoffs is driving this worthless Obama-ladan economy.

EPA be damned. And they ARE a damnable bunch.

You are welcome to your opinions, I simply see no compelling reason to agree with, or share them.

 

[Dubya]

Blablablabla...CO2 still isn't a pollutant, tovarich.

The conservative US Supreme Court the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in in Massachusetts v. EPA, that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping emissions are “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act, and that the U.S. government already has authority to start curbing them.

And thus began... the beginning of the end. Of commerce.

Doesn't matter what age-old ruling, what matters is today. And today natural gas and its associated spinoffs is driving this worthless Obama-ladan economy.

EPA be damned. And they ARE a damnable bunch.

With one toxic waste site for every 300 Americans, you could look at the EPA that way.

You could also be reasonable and notice that Gov. Perry once was considered a moderate, before moving to the right with all his nonsense to impress the Teabagger crowd for his political gain. Of course, you all knew that because no one can fool your kind!

Only the wingnuts think the EPA is strict.

What percentage of our nuclear facilities don't have radioactive tritium in the ground water below?

If someone is doing a very large project, you would think in the over 42 years after President Nixon proposed it and the EPA started operation that someone would figure out the rules and plan ahead for an Environmental Impact Report. Nixon proposed the EPA after the Cuyahoga River, which runs into Lake Erie "caught fire" and the Santa Barbara oil spill.

Cuyahoga River of Cleveland, Ohio, "catching fire"

 

[Toronado3800]

EPA to issue greenhouse gas permits in Texas | Dallas-Fort Worth Medicine News and Advice - Health News for Dallas, Texas - The Dallas Morning News
EPA to issue greenhouse gas permits in Texas

By DAVE MICHAELS / The Dallas Morning [email protected]
DAVE MICHAELS / The Dallas Morning [email protected] The Dallas Morning News
Published: 24 December 2010 09:18 AM

WASHINGTON - The Environmental Protection Agency said Thursday that it will seize authority from Texas to regulate major emitters of greenhouse gases because Gov. Rick Perry and state regulators refused to implement the rules.
The move caps a long dispute between Texas and the EPA, which have clashed over the Obama administration's push to regulate industrial sources of carbon dioxide emissions.
State officials complain the rules will unfairly punish Texas and its energy-hungry industries when they take effect Jan. 2.
While the EPA makes the rules, states implement most of the requirements of the Clean Air Act.
The most likely practical effect of the EPA awarding permits instead of the state is that companies will find it takes longer to acquire them, said Jeff Holmstead, an EPA assistant administrator from 2001 to 2005.
"EPA takes forever to do permits," said Holmstead, the head of environmental strategies at law and lobbying firm Bracewell & Giuliani in Washington. "No state wants to be at EPA's mercy."
Other states have joined Texas in lawsuits challenging the EPA's permit rule and its legal basis for regulating greenhouse gas emissions. But only Texas refused to set up the permit program.


Forum copyright policy, to be found HERE, prohibits posting of pieces in their entirety.

~Oddball

How did the lawsuit turn out?

 

[Dubya]

EPA to issue greenhouse gas permits in Texas | Dallas-Fort Worth Medicine News and Advice - Health News for Dallas, Texas - The Dallas Morning News
EPA to issue greenhouse gas permits in Texas

By DAVE MICHAELS / The Dallas Morning [email protected]
DAVE MICHAELS / The Dallas Morning [email protected] The Dallas Morning News
Published: 24 December 2010 09:18 AM

WASHINGTON - The Environmental Protection Agency said Thursday that it will seize authority from Texas to regulate major emitters of greenhouse gases because Gov. Rick Perry and state regulators refused to implement the rules.
The move caps a long dispute between Texas and the EPA, which have clashed over the Obama administration's push to regulate industrial sources of carbon dioxide emissions.
State officials complain the rules will unfairly punish Texas and its energy-hungry industries when they take effect Jan. 2.
While the EPA makes the rules, states implement most of the requirements of the Clean Air Act.
The most likely practical effect of the EPA awarding permits instead of the state is that companies will find it takes longer to acquire them, said Jeff Holmstead, an EPA assistant administrator from 2001 to 2005.
"EPA takes forever to do permits," said Holmstead, the head of environmental strategies at law and lobbying firm Bracewell & Giuliani in Washington. "No state wants to be at EPA's mercy."
Other states have joined Texas in lawsuits challenging the EPA's permit rule and its legal basis for regulating greenhouse gas emissions. But only Texas refused to set up the permit program.


Forum copyright policy, to be found HERE, prohibits posting of pieces in their entirety.

~Oddball

How did the lawsuit turn out?

EPA’s CO2 Regulation Upheld as “Unambiguously Correct”

Source: Environmental Protection Agency's Right to Regulate Greenhouse Gases Upheld | TIME.com

 

[Flopper]

EPA to issue greenhouse gas permits in Texas | Dallas-Fort Worth Medicine News and Advice - Health News for Dallas, Texas - The Dallas Morning News
EPA to issue greenhouse gas permits in Texas

By DAVE MICHAELS / The Dallas Morning [email protected]
DAVE MICHAELS / The Dallas Morning [email protected] The Dallas Morning News
Published: 24 December 2010 09:18 AM

WASHINGTON - The Environmental Protection Agency said Thursday that it will seize authority from Texas to regulate major emitters of greenhouse gases because Gov. Rick Perry and state regulators refused to implement the rules.
The move caps a long dispute between Texas and the EPA, which have clashed over the Obama administration's push to regulate industrial sources of carbon dioxide emissions.
State officials complain the rules will unfairly punish Texas and its energy-hungry industries when they take effect Jan. 2.
While the EPA makes the rules, states implement most of the requirements of the Clean Air Act.
The most likely practical effect of the EPA awarding permits instead of the state is that companies will find it takes longer to acquire them, said Jeff Holmstead, an EPA assistant administrator from 2001 to 2005.
"EPA takes forever to do permits," said Holmstead, the head of environmental strategies at law and lobbying firm Bracewell & Giuliani in Washington. "No state wants to be at EPA's mercy."
Other states have joined Texas in lawsuits challenging the EPA's permit rule and its legal basis for regulating greenhouse gas emissions. But only Texas refused to set up the permit program.


Forum copyright policy, to be found HERE, prohibits posting of pieces in their entirety.

~Oddball

As I recall, Rick Perry was one of the Republican candidate wantabes who promised to dismantle the EPA if elected. Anything that threatens Texas oil production has just got to be bad.

 

[freedombecki]

Yep. Print more money, hire more thought police and revenuers. Spend a trillion. That'll show 'em who's boss!

Well, if we can get Texas to stop sending us stupid politicians out of the deal, I say go for it.

Since the state of Texas sucks more tax dollars from the federal teat than they contribute, I hope they either clean up their house or secede.

Texas can no longer complain that it gives more than it gets from federal government | Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas and National Politics and Elections News - News for Dallas, Texas - The Dallas Morning News

That wouldn't be a very bright thing to do. Texas, aside from contributing a large share of military soldiers for the U. S. Army has borne the brunt of accepting and putting people to work who come over her borders--whether they are from unknown parts south of the longest border with Mexico of an of the states, she has also welcomed people who can't get jobs in strapped jobless states but can get them here. Our last two governors have given more jobs to people than all the other 49 states in over a dozen years. We've educated millions for free and provided opportunities for the jobless, resisting the communism that President Barack Obama has foisted on other states with his card-carrying commie kitchen cabinet, larger than any of his predecessors who relied on the advice of cabinet members who received Congress' scrutiny and up or down votes.

In spite of her hardships, Texas is the 11th largest economy in the world. I'm not in the least bit sorry that grates your hind end that we are useful to this nation with the resources our natives provide for everyone who taps us.

And reporters in the Dallianse Mourning Noise are fulla bull malarkey.

 

[SSDD]

Blablablabla...CO2 still isn't a pollutant, tovarich.

The conservative US Supreme Court the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in in Massachusetts v. EPA, that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping emissions are “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act, and that the U.S. government already has authority to start curbing them.

And the supreme court is qualified to make such a decision based on what experitise? That was without a doubt the most bald faced appeal to authority that I have seen in a long while.