It is simply stunning the power that we have handed to the radicals. We may very well not survive their insane agendas.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126013960013179181.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

The writing has been on the wall for this since the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act, and thus gives the EPA the power to regulate them if they deem them a danger to the public. Not shockingly they found the co2 a danger to the public.

I just hope at some point the reality sets in with someone in government that while this sounds all fine and good in theory, they will all lose their jobs across the boards if whatever actions they take appreciably increase people's electric/heating bills as well as everything else we buy. You would hope that reality would moderate whatever approach the fringe on the left decide to take.

I know some of them love global warming, but I will be interested to see if they love it enough to lose their jobs over.

Should we all stop exhaling?

GHG emission regulation of some sort WILL happen. What affects business leaders right now is the uncertainty surrounding it, which negatively and significantly impacts their long-term planning. Most business leaders I've talked to about it would like to see a legislative solution (cap-and-trade) rather than a top-down command-and-control regulatory regime from the EPA. The costs aren't killing businesses; the uncertainty and regulatory risk are.

Carol Browner is a super loon among loons.

Why we are listening to these crazies is frightening.

Of course, there is no longer a mainstream media out there to prevent just this type of idiocy from taking hold. If we had a real Fourth Estate in this country, she would never have gotten that post, and the EPA wouldn't be allowed to run amok as it has.

Most of the general public has no idea just how radical some of Obambi's appointees are, or that approval rating of his would be much, much lower.

An EPA spokeswoman declined to comment Sunday on when the agency might finalize its proposed endangerment finding.

Well, I love how they're so confident in their agenda! :s

The spokeswoman said that the EPA is confident the basis for its decision will be "very strong," and that when it is published, "we invite the public to review the extensive scientific analysis informing" the decision.

How are things such as this trustworthy, anymore? How do we know that numbers and findings aren't "smudged" to fit the criteria? With possible false imformation being controlled by special interests, I think this is a valid question at this point. :s

"Only those who stand to benefit financially by denying the impacts and even existence of global warming are the ones still denying it. However the evidence to the contrary is far too convincing."

Really? Because I won't earn a dime over whatever potential EPA legislation comes out of this, and I don't buy into it at all. :s

Unless they somehow claim that there is such a thing as internet emissions, which the internet is vital to my line of work. I transfer data all the time. (joking!)

I'm torn on the issue. While I adamantly think that we do need to ease up polluting (for reasons other than the controversial global warming like, health, and the fact that I like going outside without it looking/smelling like LA) I also realize that it can be expensive and needs to be done in a way that doesn't inhibit the marketplace too radically.

I'd like to think that the market could police itself in this regard but that obviously isn't the case. What we need is someone with real influence to take the middle ground on the issue. It seems to me that all we have now are people who either want insanely complicated, expensive, and unrealistic restraints on pollution or businessman and the like who want no restraints because it costs them money. I haven't seen a serious middle of the road proposal and yes I know, middle of the road pleases no one, but it is probably the most practical.

I Wear Pants wrote: I'm torn on the issue. While I adamantly think that we do need to ease up polluting (for reasons other than the controversial global warming like, health, and the fact that I like going outside without it looking/smelling like LA) I also realize that it can be expensive and needs to be done in a way that doesn't inhibit the marketplace too radically.

I'd like to think that the market could police itself in this regard but that obviously isn't the case. What we need is someone with real influence to take the middle ground on the issue. It seems to me that all we have now are people who either want insanely complicated, expensive, and unrealistic restraints on pollution or businessman and the like who want no restraints because it costs them money. I haven't seen a serious middle of the road proposal and yes I know, middle of the road pleases no one, but it is probably the most practical.

Your post is misplaced here.

NOBODY on here is arguing against real pollution control (particulates, etc) but we are drawing the line at saying what we exhale (and every plant needs to thrive) is somehow a threat to the health and well-being of man.

There's a huge difference between the two.

fan_from_texas wrote: GHG emission regulation of some sort WILL happen. What affects business leaders right now is the uncertainty surrounding it, which negatively and significantly impacts their long-term planning. Most business leaders I've talked to about it would like to see a legislative solution (cap-and-trade) rather than a top-down command-and-control regulatory regime from the EPA. The costs aren't killing businesses; the uncertainty and regulatory risk are.

When the Feds get involved in regulating ANYTHING it's never a good thing.

Goldman Sachs is poised to have yet another license to print money if Cap N' Trade happens. That is a recipe for wild price fluctuations much like we have seen in the energy markets the past 6-7 years.

I don't like the idea of a tax or a cap n' trade system, but if stability is the goal than the tax is the way to go.

Speculating on carbon credits and offsets and creating artificial paper scarcities of both as has been done to the energy markets so often will have prices spiral completely out of control.

If there must be something, have it be a straight forward tax on how much polluting your doing as it would be less likely to become a bubble ultimately the way we have seen with sub-prime and commodities.

If Goldman Sachs is for it, that means the American people will end up losing. Take that to the bank.

...

(posted a link on wrong thread)

QuakerOats wrote: It is simply stunning the power that we have handed to the radicals. We may very well not survive their insane agendas.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126013960013179181.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

In this case,Co2 being a pollutant there is only one fair thing to do. Tax the people on how much they exhale.

Of course athletes and long distance runners breath lots more while exercising so they will take the brunt of the blow. Long winded politicians though should be exempt as they are trying so hard to eradicate the problems and we all know only government can fix the wrongs with the world.

Now should we have some sort of monitering machine to measure the people or should we get tested to see how much CO2 we exhale into the atmosphere?

Or should it be a family tax? If you have more in your family you are producing more pollutants and that just will not do. So the more children ie polluters you have created the more you pay.

Beano for cows.

NOW!

Writerbuckeye wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote:

Your post is misplaced here.

NOBODY on here is arguing against real pollution control (particulates, etc) but we are drawing the line at saying what we exhale (and every plant needs to thrive) is somehow a threat to the health and well-being of man.

There's a huge difference between the two.

CO2 is not produced in anywhere near the quantities that we're pumping it out by simply breathing.

Also, according to that logic anything that's naturally produced is clearly fine for the environment/our health. Which is simply not true.

ccrunner609 wrote: It aint gonna matter what we do to the air....when that big volcano under yellowstone errupts in 2012 we are all dead.

Quite true.

I Wear Pants wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote:

Your post is misplaced here.

NOBODY on here is arguing against real pollution control (particulates, etc) but we are drawing the line at saying what we exhale (and every plant needs to thrive) is somehow a threat to the health and well-being of man.

There's a huge difference between the two.

CO2 is not produced in anywhere near the quantities that we're pumping it out by simply breathing.

Also, according to that logic anything that's naturally produced is clearly fine for the environment/our health. Which is simply not true.

Show me how mankind is producing enough co2 to cause this change. Where is the bulk of co2 in the atmosphere coming from? Is it from stuff we're producing.

I'm pretty sure I know the answers and they don't support the theory of man-made global warming. Not by a long shot. The things being targeted now weren't around thousands of years ago, yet we had lengthy cycles of warmer climates then than we do now. The global warming folks can't (and won't) explain that.

I've been pretty skeptical of this from the beginning, but with the release of the e-mails and the obvious efforts by those MAKING GREAT DEALS OF MONEY OFF THIS taking efforts to skew the data, I'm even less convinced.

I Wear Pants wrote: CO2 is not produced in anywhere near the quantities that we're pumping it out by simply breathing.

Also, according to that logic anything that's naturally produced is clearly fine for the environment/our health. Which is simply not true.

Not saying this is not true, but if you are going to make this claim and expect us to belive it is nothing more than your biased opinion you need to give us some proof.

I agree with part of IGGY's post here....

The writing has been on the wall for this since the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act, and thus gives the EPA the power to regulate them if they deem them a danger to the public. Not shockingly they found the co2 a danger to the public.

If you agree with that 2007 court ruling, you should turn off your computer, cell phone and other non-essential appliances immediately, and never turn them on again.

Ghmothwdwhso wrote: I agree with part of IGGY's post here....

The writing has been on the wall for this since the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act, and thus gives the EPA the power to regulate them if they deem them a danger to the public. Not shockingly they found the co2 a danger to the public.

If you agree with that 2007 court ruling, you should turn off your computer, cell phone and other non-essential appliances immediately, and never turn them on again.

And that is, indeed, the irony and hypocrisy of this thing.

Ghmothwdwhso wrote: If you agree with that 2007 court ruling, you should turn off your computer, cell phone and other non-essential appliances immediately, and never turn them on again.

That's poor logic. Noting that something can be harmful doesn't mean it is incumbent upon us to do absolutely anything to abate the risk. I mean, we know that people are killed in car accidents (and this is something for which there is no debate), but that doesn't mean we insist that everyone stop driving.

It isn't an all-or-nothing approach, and putting the debate in such black-and-white terms simply begs the question. The reality is that there are tradeoffs to be made, and those are essentially a policy decision. We can reduce our GDP (with real, concomitant effects on poverty, QOL, etc.) to combat global warming or we can let it happen. As humans, we're not very good at discounting the future to address something that has a small chance of occurring but would be catastrophic if it happened. E.g., if we're 95% sure that global warming won't happen, but that 5% would result in disasterous effects, would it be appropriate to scale back GDP growth 1% right now to account for it? What about .001%? What if we're 80% sure catastrophic global warming won't happen? Then how much GDP hit is appropriate?

These are policy questions. Essentially, we're trading off a sure hit to our opulent lifestyle now versus a small possibility of a catastrophic hit to our kids' lifestyle in the future. While I'm not sure where I fall on the debate, I do think it's disgusting and self-absorbed to mortgage the future to feed the consumption of the present (both in the sense of ignoring the possible effects of climate change and by taking on massive debt national to fund our dionysian excess now).

majorspark wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: CO2 is not produced in anywhere near the quantities that we're pumping it out by simply breathing.

Also, according to that logic anything that's naturally produced is clearly fine for the environment/our health. Which is simply not true.

Not saying this is not true, but if you are going to make this claim and expect us to belive it is nothing more than your biased opinion you need to give us some proof.

Wait, so you don't think that all of our cars/factories/furnaces and fireplaces put out a whole lot of CO2?

I wasn't even claiming it causes warming or anything. I'm just saying that at some point it's probably bad that we're putting out so much Co2.

Also, I'm not going to pretend to understand everything about the subject but I took a class on Ice Ages last year and the consensus of the professor and books I read seem to be that we should be, or are near to hitting another cooling period which could be being delayed by all the CO2/other greenhouse gases. Terrible run on sentence.

Again, I'm not claiming to have conclusive evidence to the contrary I just think it's probably silly to believe that there are no ramifications for all the CO2 we're churning out.

I understand the anti-global warming folks, those who say it doesn't exist, etc., as even i think that it is more likely a natural phenomenon than anything else, as the history of the planet dictates.

However, there is no doubt that the amount of pollution we spew into the air in a variety of different ways has made our planet a less than healthy place to live, and contributes to all sorts of medical maladies. I don't know the proper way of going about lessening this, but i hope something can be done and that both sides can compromise on it.

We can debate all we want about global warming, but there is no doubt that pollution is hurting us in numerous other, more direct ways.

^^ This.

Cbus, I can see what you're saying to.

Which makes me wonder why the government just doesn't call it something like "The Pulverize Pollution Movement" or a "Clean Air Act" or whatever.

But no, instead, they had to try and hoodwink us all, and for a minute it worked. Then alot of people caught up and started calling shenanigans.
NOW, the government/special interest groups have plowed themselves under so bad that have a high mountain to overcome if they want any sort of credibility with the general public.
As of right now, the only people that believe it are the ones who really want/need "a cause".

Right, so because some idiots hacked an email account many years of research and work are now labeled as special interest groups trying to "hoodwink" us all.

Whether you think our pollution causes climate change or if we just make things dirtier and more unhealthy for us all the end conclusion should be the same. We need to cut down on how much crap we put into the air/ground/water.