bills_fan Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 If the EPA sucessfully declares carbon emmisions a threat to the health of Americans and must be regulated by the EPA, say hello to another 5% in unemployment and bye-bye to job creation. I'm not certain the EPA could survive a contitutional challenge, but it may take and Act of Congress to overrule the EPA. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedc...vLuVLgKVygMZ8oL http://www.businessinsider.com/gartman-the...k-havoc-2009-12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 If the EPA sucessfully declares carbon emmisions a threat to the health of Americans and must be regulated by the EPA, say hello to another 5% in unemployment and bye-bye to job creation. I'm not certain the EPA could survive a contitutional challenge, but it may take and Act of Congress to overrule the EPA. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedc...vLuVLgKVygMZ8oL http://www.businessinsider.com/gartman-the...k-havoc-2009-12 Are they going to regulate my breathing, too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 If the EPA sucessfully declares carbon emmisions a threat to the health of Americans and must be regulated by the EPA, say hello to another 5% in unemployment and bye-bye to job creation. I'm not certain the EPA could survive a contitutional challenge, but it may take and Act of Congress to overrule the EPA. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedc...vLuVLgKVygMZ8oL http://www.businessinsider.com/gartman-the...k-havoc-2009-12 This !@#$ing blows! To add to this, which I mentioned yesterday, whoever thinks that this ruling happened to coincidentally fall one week before Obama's trip to Copenhagen is a !@#$ING IDIOT!! It is clear that they came up with this conclusion to only further bolster Obama's appearance at the climate summit, so that to show that he came armed with the committment of the U.S to lower greenhouse gas emissions. It's a !@#$ing sham, and even Obama supporter Warren Buffett thinks will do more harm than good http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/...regressive-tax/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Looks like Cass Sunstein is going to be a very busy man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 There goes Peggy's house payment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Are they going to regulate my breathing, too? Yes. We exhale about 1 ton of CO2 per year,I have heard. That's half of the goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Yes. We exhale about 1 ton of CO2 per year,I have heard. That's half of the goal. Blowhards like you and me probably exhale twice that, though. We're !@#$ed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Are they going to regulate my breathing, too? Probably. The news reports are saying that the EPA is planning on regulating CO2 under PSD regs (thus the 250 TPY major source threshold). I don't see how they do that as CO2 isn't a SOX, PM, NOX, hydrocarbon, CO, or ozone depleter (photochemical oxidant). I could see a warped interpretation where they could regulate it as a HAP, but that would lead to even lower major source thresholds 10/25 TPY. The news reports also state that EPA arbitrarily wants to implement a 2,500 TPY MS threshold, but there is nothing in the CAAA that give it the authority to set its own thresholds above those in the CAA or amendments. So I don't see how this survives its 1st court challenge unless Congress revises the CAA again. I didn't see the press release on the EPA site yet, so I'm not sure what justifications they are giving for the plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Blowhards like you and me probably exhale twice that, though. We're !@#$ed. If you guys were smart, you'd clam up so people like Conner and Bishop have to buy carbon credits from you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 I didn't see the press release on the EPA site yet, so I'm not sure what justifications they are giving for the plan. The justification is easy: Obama couldn't go to Carbonhagen empty-handed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 The justification is easy: Obama couldn't go to Carbonhagen empty-handed. Exactly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 The justification is easy: Obama couldn't go to Carbonhagen empty-handed. The reason they want to do it IS clear. The legal justification they are using almost definitely isn't as straightforward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Probably. The news reports are saying that the EPA is planning on regulating CO2 under PSD regs (thus the 250 TPY major source threshold). I don't see how they do that as CO2 isn't a SOX, PM, NOX, hydrocarbon, CO, or ozone depleter (photochemical oxidant). I could see a warped interpretation where they could regulate it as a HAP, but that would lead to even lower major source thresholds 10/25 TPY. The news reports also state that EPA arbitrarily wants to implement a 2,500 TPY MS threshold, but there is nothing in the CAAA that give it the authority to set its own thresholds above those in the CAA or amendments. So I don't see how this survives its 1st court challenge unless Congress revises the CAA again. I didn't see the press release on the EPA site yet, so I'm not sure what justifications they are giving for the plan. If I plug this post into Babelfish will it spit out what you said in English? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 The reason they want to do it IS clear. The legal justification they are using almost definitely isn't as straightforward. And I can tell you how this is going to play out once it goes to the Senate. When the public starts to hear about how much this could end up costing everyone, in taxes, jobs etc. they are going to go ApeShit!! Just to show you how unimportant Global Warming is to our society: http://people-press.org/report/485/economy...policy-priority It's a poll that was done at the beginning of the year, and it shows 20 different issues in the economy of what most Americans VALUE as the most important areas to address. To no surprise, the Economy and Jobs were #1 and #2. Do you want to take a guess where Global Warming ranked out of the 20 issues? Take a guess, a wild guess. But, of course, just like what Gibbs did, scoffed at the suggestion of BO's poll numbers sinking faster than the Titanic, they will pay no attention to how unimportant our society feels about this issue at this point in time. But hey, keep appeasing the loony left BO, and see what happens in the November elections. Maybe that will be BO's watershed moment, when the Demotards get slaughtered in the Nov 2010 elections, maybe he will come to the realization that his policies suck and we don't want his vision of "CHANGE". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 If I plug this post into Babelfish will it spit out what you said in English? Probably not. Sorry 'bout that. Nearly English translation is: it appears that EPA is planning on regulating carbon dioxide under a portion of the clean air act (the portion dealing with prevention of significant deterioration of air quality) which doesn't seem to be set up to regulate carbon dioxide. PSD regulates sulfur oxides, particulate matter, nitrous oxides, organics, carbon monoxide, and ozone depleting materials; carbon dioxide doesn't fit any of those categories. EPA could probably declare carbon dioxide a hazardous air pollutant and regulate it under a different portion of the clean air act. Under either scenario, the EPA is proposing limits on how much a regulated (major) source could emit that are far greater than the limits under either portion of the statute. Meaning they plan to develop regulations for only a fraction of the facilities that they would be required to regulate by statute. Following the statute and declaring carbon dioxide a hazardous air pollutant would make pretty much every publicly used building out of compliance with the regs. The news reports make it appear that the EPA realizes they can't regulate literally everything (yet) but they REALLY want to regulate CO2; so they are not only planning on making stuff up by regulating CO2, but they also plan to make stuff up in regards to how they will regulate CO2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Probably not. Sorry 'bout that. Nearly English translation is: it appears that EPA is planning on regulating carbon dioxide under a portion of the clean air act (the portion dealing with prevention of significant deterioration of air quality) which doesn't seem to be set up to regulate carbon dioxide. PSD regulates sulfur oxides, particulate matter, nitrous oxides, organics, carbon monoxide, and ozone depleting materials; carbon dioxide doesn't fit any of those categories. EPA could probably declare carbon dioxide a hazardous air pollutant and regulate it under a different portion of the clean air act. Under either scenario, the EPA is proposing limits on how much a regulated (major) source could emit that are far greater than the limits under either portion of the statute. Meaning they plan to develop regulations for only a fraction of the facilities that they would be required to regulate by statute. Following the statute and declaring carbon dioxide a hazardous air pollutant would make pretty much every publicly used building out of compliance with the regs. The news reports make it appear that the EPA realizes they can't regulate literally everything (yet) but they REALLY want to regulate CO2; so they are not only planning on making stuff up by regulating CO2, but they also plan to make stuff up in regards to how they will regulate CO2. ok, still don't get it. How about in Spanish? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Probably not. Sorry 'bout that. Nearly English translation is: it appears that EPA is planning on regulating carbon dioxide under a portion of the clean air act (the portion dealing with prevention of significant deterioration of air quality) which doesn't seem to be set up to regulate carbon dioxide. PSD regulates sulfur oxides, particulate matter, nitrous oxides, organics, carbon monoxide, and ozone depleting materials; carbon dioxide doesn't fit any of those categories. EPA could probably declare carbon dioxide a hazardous air pollutant and regulate it under a different portion of the clean air act. Under either scenario, the EPA is proposing limits on how much a regulated (major) source could emit that are far greater than the limits under either portion of the statute. Meaning they plan to develop regulations for only a fraction of the facilities that they would be required to regulate by statute. Following the statute and declaring carbon dioxide a hazardous air pollutant would make pretty much every publicly used building out of compliance with the regs. The news reports make it appear that the EPA realizes they can't regulate literally everything (yet) but they REALLY want to regulate CO2; so they are not only planning on making stuff up by regulating CO2, but they also plan to make stuff up in regards to how they will regulate CO2. Thanks but I plugged in your original post into Babelfish and this is what I got: Another governmental cluster!@#$. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted December 8, 2009 Author Share Posted December 8, 2009 Probably not. Sorry 'bout that. Nearly English translation is: it appears that EPA is planning on regulating carbon dioxide under a portion of the clean air act (the portion dealing with prevention of significant deterioration of air quality) which doesn't seem to be set up to regulate carbon dioxide. PSD regulates sulfur oxides, particulate matter, nitrous oxides, organics, carbon monoxide, and ozone depleting materials; carbon dioxide doesn't fit any of those categories. EPA could probably declare carbon dioxide a hazardous air pollutant and regulate it under a different portion of the clean air act. Under either scenario, the EPA is proposing limits on how much a regulated (major) source could emit that are far greater than the limits under either portion of the statute. Meaning they plan to develop regulations for only a fraction of the facilities that they would be required to regulate by statute. Following the statute and declaring carbon dioxide a hazardous air pollutant would make pretty much every publicly used building out of compliance with the regs. The news reports make it appear that the EPA realizes they can't regulate literally everything (yet) but they REALLY want to regulate CO2; so they are not only planning on making stuff up by regulating CO2, but they also plan to make stuff up in regards to how they will regulate CO2. And I have no idea how this survives a court challenge. Either you regulate everything because CO2 is a hazardous air pollutant or you regulate nothing. Nowhere does it say you only regulate businesses producing 25,000 tons of it a year. Either they back off or everything gets regulated (including your trips to work, the food store, etc.), at which point every incumbent in either party loses his/her job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Blowhards like you and me probably exhale twice that, though. We're !@#$ed. That's right. We will be among the first rousted in the night and relocated to the re-education gulags. I think they will be located in backwoods Maine - transportation costs to Alaska are prohibitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Blowhards like you and me probably exhale twice that, though. We're !@#$ed. I wonder what the carbon footprint of Last Post Wins is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts