More CO2 BS

This forum is for the discussion of topics of political nature that affect the duning community.

Moderator: Sitewide Forum Moderators

Post Reply
crash
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 3915
Joined: Mon May 20, 2002 7:31 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA

More CO2 BS

Post by crash »

EPA chief refuses to give timetable for acting on Supreme Court's global warming directive





By H. Josef Hebert
ASSOCIATED PRESS

11:23 a.m. April 24, 2007

WASHINGTON – The head of the Environmental Protection Agency repeatedly refused to say Tuesday how soon he will comply with a Supreme Court ruling and decide whether to regulate carbon dioxide, the leading gas linked to global warming.
EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, appearing before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, was asked repeatedly to provide a timetable for responding to the April 2 Supreme Court decisions. The court said the Clean Air Act makes clear the agency must regulate carbon dioxide if it's found that it endangers public health.



Advertisement The legal argument has been settled and “now there's is an unmistakable green light to take action now,” Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., the committee's chairman, told Johnson: “There is no excuse for delay.”
But Johnson called the court's ruling complex and said he did not want to be tied to a specific timetable.

“I'm not going to be forced into making a snap decision,” he later told reporters.

When Boxer said EPA staff had indicated the agency could make a decision on regulating carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles in three or four months, Johnson said he would “not commit to a specific four-month schedule.”

“We will move expeditiously, but we are going to be moving responsibly,” said Johnson, a variation of a phrase he used again and again when pressed by senators on a timetable.

“I don't hear in your voice a sense of urgency,” Boxer told Johnson.

While the court's decision focused on tailpipe emissions from cars and trucks, Johnson said the agency is evaluating what impact the ruling might have on the need to regulate releases from power plants and industrial sources as well.

“Why has it been so difficult to convince you that your agency should protect the environment?” Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., asked Johnson as he sat alone at the witness table.

“Stop denying the impact of global warming,” Lautenberg continued.

Republican senators came to Johnson's defense.

“You are being pressured ... to make carbon regulation the central organizing principle of our society. I caution you against it,” Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., told Johnson. Imhofe is perhaps the most vocal global warming skeptic in the Senate.

Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., added, “some have promised to hound you for quick action” on carbon dioxide regulation, a reference to Boxer's promise that she would continue to press the EPA on the issue.

The Bush administration has long argued that it had no authority to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act, an issue on which the court in 5-4 decision rejected. While the court did not say the EPA must regulate carbon, it said if it doesn't, it must show that carbon dioxide emissions are not a danger to public health.

Johnson reiterated President Bush has acknowledged concern about climate change and provided a long list of actions he said the administration is taking to deal with the issue, short of regulating greenhouse gases.

“What is the most serious environmental hazard that we face,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., asked, seeking an acknowledgment of risks of climate change.

“I don't see one being most serious,” replied Johnson, a career scientist at the EPA before being named administrator in early 2005.

Whitehouse asked the question again. And Johnson again wouldn't be pinned down.

“You astonish me,” Whitehouse snapped.

Later two former EPA administrators – Carol Browner from the Clinton administration, and William Reilly from the first Bush administration – said it is clear that carbon dioxide should be controlled because of its impact on global warming.

“If I were EPA administrator,” Reilly said, “I would welcome that authority.”

User avatar
MR. PETE
4th Gear Member
4th Gear Member
Posts: 226
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 11:52 am

Post by MR. PETE »

Isn't it interesting how planetary disasters and liberalism are so often associated.

In the 70's there was among other things, global cooling and planet overpopulation. We were told that there was no way the Earth could sustain the amount of people that would be alive in the 21st century.

In the 80's and 90's among other things, it was ozone depletion, the fear of asteriods, habitat destruction, deforestation and the death of our oceans.

Do you remember when we were told that an acre of rain forest was being cut down every minute and our planets survival was at stake?

How about the organizations that had actors such as Ted Dansen and musicians like the band Chicago and others espousing in 1988 that we only had 10 years left unless some radical changes occured in our country.

Liberalism used to determine public policy and governance eventually brings to ruin everything it touches. And, there are never any appologies for the destruction and costs left in it's wake. Just more government programs to continue solving the problems.

BTW, we have not reached tax freedom day yet. You know, that is the first day of the year that we can finally say that the money we work hard for is now ours to keep. Up till that day, all our hard earned money is taken from us via taxes.

The deity of Liberalism has not changed. That diety has many forms. The current and dominant manifestation is that of global warming.

Although the god of environmentalism it is nothing new, this time around they have somehow managed to scare and dupe enough people into believing that we have some ability to stop a natural phenomena such as global warmng. Worse yet, they are doing what they accuse other of doing; imposing their religion on the rest of us.

So with that said, how does this apply to us?

Well, how much carbon dioxide do our off road vehicles put out??

Thanks to the the poorly written EPA and the high court decision, I bet within a matter of years we will know the answer to this question and be paying for a price for it.
“If I were EPA administrator,” Reilly said, “I would welcome that authority.”
When we hear a governmental agent say "I would welcome that authority." we should be concerned.

Although he worked for a Republican administration, President Bush Sr. was hardly a conservative. That is why he lost in '92.

So, be assured that when the Democrats are in control of the two elected branches of our Government, more freedom-robbing, land confiscation regulation will be coming shortly thereafter. Plus we will also get to pay more fees/taxes just for the priviledge of enjoying the new regulations.

Freedom is not free, except for when we allow those that govern us to take it from us for free.

.02
___________________________
Peter

OBSESSED
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 5566
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2000 8:17 am
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Sand City, USA
Contact:

Post by OBSESSED »

MR. PETE wrote:Isn't it interesting how planetary disasters and liberalism are so often associated.

In the 70's there was among other things, global cooling and planet overpopulation. We were told that there was no way the Earth could sustain the amount of people that would be alive in the 21st century.

In the 80's and 90's among other things, it was ozone depletion, the fear of asteriods, habitat destruction, deforestation and the death of our oceans.

Do you remember when we were told that an acre of rain forest was being cut down every minute and our planets survival was at stake?

How about the organizations that had actors such as Ted Dansen and musicians like the band Chicago and others espousing in 1988 that we only had 10 years left unless some radical changes occured in our country.

Liberalism used to determine public policy and governance eventually brings to ruin everything it touches. And, there are never any appologies for the destruction and costs left in it's wake. Just more government programs to continue solving the problems.
This is some of the best stuff ever written!


We need to somehow, get a time line, and show all the failed and wrong paths the Enviro’s have taken us down...

Add: Paper bags destroying the trees, "You must support the plastic bags"
Now we are told plastic bags are so bad in a land fill...

and...
Fluorescent Lamps "Change out your regular incandescent lamps to Compact Fluorescent lamps" The Enviro’s now yell-- In 25 years they will say switch to LED lamps, the CF lamps leach Mercury into the soil and are ruining all the ground water...

and on and on...

Post Reply

Return to “Political Discussions Only”