Republicans Introduce Legislation to Bar EPA CO2 Regulation

Post by **Richard S.** » Thu. Jan. 06, 2011 3:30 pm

**Broken Link(s) Removed**The bill would amend the Clean Air Act to declare that greenhouse gases are not subject to the law, according to a brief description in the Congressional Record.

While GOP leadership’s specific legislative approach to attacking EPA remains to be seen, the quick introduction signals that blocking climate rules is plainly on the agenda for the new GOP majority.

cabinover · Post by **cabinover** » Thu. Jan. 06, 2011 3:32 pm

Good, now we'll see if they have the wherewithall to do it.

Post by **Richard S.** » Thu. Jan. 06, 2011 3:37 pm

Even if it made it past Senate which is unlikely Obama would veto.... however since the House holds the purse strings they can just refund anything the EPA wants to do. Until the Clean Air Act is mended one way or the other this issue will not be resolved.

rberq · Post by **rberq** » Thu. Jan. 06, 2011 8:39 pm

CO2 regulation is one thing. We can decide that global warming is not real, we can ignore it, and hope we are right. What scares me is all the other stuff they might put in climate (de)regulations. When people don't remember (or weren't born yet to see) the mess that our air and water were 50 years ago, it is too easy to believe those who want to loosen the regulations a little bit at a time until they are gone.

Post by **Richard S.** » Thu. Jan. 06, 2011 9:49 pm

rberq wrote:CO2 regulation is one thing. We can decide that global warming is not real, we can ignore it, and hope we are right. What scares me is all the other stuff they might put in climate (de)regulations. When people don't remember (or weren't born yet to see) the mess that our air and water were 50 years ago, it is too easy to believe those who want to loosen the regulations a little bit at a time until they are gone.

I don't know if you know the history of this but the EPA won the right to regulate CO2 under the current Clean air Act after a Supreme Court decision. It was never intended to be used to regulate CO2 emissions or give the EPA complete control over commerce in this nation. The EPA is an unelected bureaucracy, we don't allow the DEA, FBI or any other agency make up their own laws. The EPA is no different, the amendments are intended to reign in an agency that has over stepped it's bounds. Any legislation about climate change and greenhouse gases need to be voted on in Congress.

FYI, I've heard nothing about them changing anything about the current act, they will be amending it to specifically exclude greenhouse gases. The same language was in the climate bill passed by Democrats in the House. Why would the Republicans want to gut George H. Bush's baby anyway?

Bear038 · Post by **Bear038** » Thu. Jan. 06, 2011 11:14 pm

All I can say to all of you who think (or know) that CO2 is a deadly green house gas that needs regulation. STOP BURNING COAL, and while you are at it stop emitting all the other CO2 that is being emitted in your living.

Post by **Richard S.** » Fri. Jan. 07, 2011 12:04 am

Bear038 wrote:All I can say to all of you who think (or know) that CO2 is a deadly green house gas that needs regulation. STOP BURNING COAL, and while you are at it stop emitting all the other CO2 that is being emitted in your living.

We've had this debate here before. You have to look at the big picture, oil and electric two other common forms of heat in the norhteast most likely create more CO2 emissions. Fuel oil requires tremendous of amount of energy to get it to the consumer. 50% of the electric is already produced by coal and because of the large inefficiencies in the delivery system you'll actually produce more.

rberq · Post by **rberq** » Fri. Jan. 07, 2011 9:13 am

Richard S. wrote:... the EPA won the right to regulate CO2 under the current Clean air Act after a Supreme Court decision ... The EPA is an unelected bureaucracy, we don't allow the DEA, FBI or any other agency make up their own laws.

So the regulatory authority WAS in the law, affirmed as you say by the conservative-leaning Supreme Court. How then do you say the EPA was making up its own laws? Whatever your views on CO2 regulation, it appears the EPA was following the law, not making it up.

The unelected bureaucracies -- FAA, FDA, IRS, TSA, EPA, etc. etc. -- don't make laws, they make regulations to implement the laws. That is their function. Their regulations can be, and often are, challenged in court if someone disagrees with their interpretation of the law. In this case, the court agreed with the EPA. So you are correct, if Congress changes the law, the EPA will follow the law and stop regulating CO2.

DEA and FBI are enforcement agencies, not regulatory, which is somewhat different.

samhill · Post by **samhill** » Fri. Jan. 07, 2011 9:18 am

Personally I don`t know how dangerous one gas is compared to another or any other form of pollution but we only have one known planet to live on & once screwed up beyond repair we`ll all be dead. There is no such thing as a responsible business anymore other than the making of profit at any cost. The co2 increase IMO is a combination of irresponsible people in general, most seem to only care about something if they can see or feel it harming themselves or their way of life, the deforestation in the world is also part of the problem, its all checks & balances that nature has a way of creating until man came along. With increasing population if everyone would do even small things to reduce pollution it all adds up, like I said we only have one place to live so we better take time to give some thought to our actions. Seems like we keep making the same mistakes in the name of making money, how many rivers need to burn or Love Canals need to be created before there is one too many & it can not be fixed?

Post by **Richard S.** » Fri. Jan. 07, 2011 8:55 pm

rberq wrote: So the regulatory authority WAS in the law, affirmed as you say by the conservative-leaning Supreme Court. How then do you say the EPA was making up its own laws? Whatever your views on CO2 regulation, it appears the EPA was following the law, not making it up.

The law doesn't specifically address greenhouse gases but instead was intended to reduce pollution like lead and particulate matter. CO2 wasn't even on the table when it was enacted. While they have the authority this is something that needs to be addressed by Congress because of the enormous impact it will have across our entire economy.

Post by **Richard S.** » Fri. Jan. 07, 2011 9:02 pm

samhill wrote: Seems like we keep making the same mistakes in the name of making money, how many rivers need to burn or Love Canals need to be created before there is one too many & it can not be fixed?

Sam you need to stop listening to the gloom and doomers, under the Clean Air Act air pollution has been reduced by 54% in three decades. The largest threat to our water systems right now is nitrogen, this comes from farming, sewers etc. It doesn't necessarily pollute the water in the sense you can't drink it but instead kills off the aquatic life.

While the Clean Air Act has worked wonders for many of these issues CO2 is completely different animal and needs to be addressed on it's own.

samhill · Post by **samhill** » Fri. Jan. 07, 2011 9:20 pm

With the fracking process for gas in our area we better start worrying about water quality all over again, once aquatic life is gone you really believe that the water is OK for humans? I`m not a tree hugger but trees do convert CO2, Why all the studies on cars but never on jet aircraft, theres more jets putting CO2 in the clouds than ever before. All I`m saying is it should be addressed before its a major problem rather than waiting.

Post by **Richard S.** » Fri. Jan. 07, 2011 9:28 pm

samhill wrote:..once aquatic life is gone you really believe that the water is OK for humans?

Nitrogen is used heavily in fertilizers to grow food which eventually finds its way into the water and the excessive nitrogen deprives fish of oxygen.

http://www.chesapeakebay.net/nitrogen.aspx?menuitem=19412

Nitrogen is a type of nutrient contributing to the Bay's poor water quality. While nitrogen is needed for plant growth, human activities—from driving cars to applying fertilizers—contribute more nitrogen than the Bay's waters can handle. Elevated nitrogen levels cause more algae to grow, blocking out sunlight and reducing oxygen for fish, blue crabs and other Bay life.

I probably should have noted it doesn't kill all life.

Dann757 · Post by **Dann757** » Fri. Jan. 07, 2011 9:33 pm

Samhill or Rberg I'll never bust your chops again, you both helped me with my contracting problem thread. Sam, you were a steelworker, ya gotta do some thinking about what it took to produce the steel that enabled you to make a living. There should be a balance, but consider if the eco greenies had steel production banned in the name of liberal weeniness in those days. Don't get me wrong, I've always felt a lot of pride when I see a steel frame going up, an American flag flying off a crane ball.

I know a farmer that has been a grower all his life; when pollution was bad, acid rain etc.,I guess in the 70's, his flower crops were really showing what can happen. Browning up and dying. They took care of the problem over the years, I guess with scrubbers for the industrial facilities. So that was a reasonable solution.

When I heard about CO2 being classified as a pollutant, I just felt like it was a political move and an issue of control rather than proven science. Maybe I'm just being manipulated by the media. If the earth was an 800 page book, mankind would be on the last paragraph, the earth won't vanish no matter what we do. I just want my liberty, I don't pour waste oil into sewers, but I don't want my standard of living eroded by the anti-colonial snake that's in office now. My outlook is that he wants "energy prices to necessarily skyrocket", as part of his robin hood ideology.
That same farmer said we're gonna be the ones riding bicycles, and the Chinese are gonna be driving the Escalades.
It might make sense if every country was on the same page, whatever hardships they impose on us here, won't make even a tiny difference as the developing nations quench their thirst for energy.

samhill · Post by **samhill** » Fri. Jan. 07, 2011 10:19 pm

Thats what I`m talking about Dan, the steelmills cleaned up their act a great deal & the reality of it was they got some better more cost effective processes out of it. There has to be a balance to everything IMO as I always say you sometimes have to spend money to make it. Even the Chinese decades ago came to the conclusion that their population was getting out of hand so they did something about it, even now in their major cities most streetlights are solar powered, small steps but all those steps add up. As a kid I did a science project of hanging a magnet off a tree limb & by the next morning you couldn`t get another piece of graphite to stick to that magnet, but at the same time all the people living in the city accepted it as part of having work & just swept every day of their lives. I believe it was Nixon that started the EPA, without some guidance the mills would have never cleaned up their act but they did & became better for it. I don`t want or expect change overnight but hell we should always be trying to better our way of life & doing things.