Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's not mincing words at all. For example while it might be the policy of the US government to consider Iran and NK hostile nations the military can't go and declare war on those nations. That decision is left to our elected leaders. If you still don't see the nuance here I can't really explain it any further.
While they have won the legal right with the Supreme Court decision to regulate CO2 emissions based on a law that was never intended for this purpose written back in 1990 if the EPA wants to declare war on CO2 they need to go through Congress first. There is far too many implications involved to not go through Congress. This really isn't even a Democrat vs. Republican issue, I posted it previously but here it is again:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Wednesday that Congress, not the Obama administration, needs to address global warming.
Asked if she wants the Obama administration to address climate change through regulations if Congress fails to pass a bill this year, Pelosi responded, "It has to be done by statute."
Also as I noted previously the Climate Bill passed by the House Democrats stripped the EPA of this power. Even they realize this is far too much power to entrust the EPA with.
What I'm referring too is the 1990 amendment which is by far the most profound piece of environmental legislation ever passed, everything before that was small potatoes.
The following statement was issued by EPA Administrator William K. Reilly today following the President's signing of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990:
"During his 1988 campaign, the President vowed to amend the Nation's clean air laws, saying that "every American expects and deserves to breathe clean air." The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, signed into law today, triumphantly fulfill that pledge. Through his leadership, the President broke the 13-year clean air stalemate by submitting an innovative, market-based bill which will achieve the nation's environmental goals in the most effective manner. EPA Administrator Reilly Hails Signing of New Clean Air Act | About EPA | US EPA
Presidents do not submit legislation. This is basic civics. It was actually Senator Max Bacus, a Democrat, who submitted the legislation, which includes an additional 150 amendments. None of them proposed or submitted by President Bush (41). See http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d101:s.01630:
EPA apologists must be fearful that environmental degradation will harm the money trees from which the filthy rich harvest all their wealth.
Otherwise they would be a lot more concerned about the impoverishment of the whole society, top to bottom, by the foolish quest to eliminate industrial pollution by eliminating industry.
"foolish quest to eliminate pollution"
I really don't think you know what "foolish" sounds like.
EPA apologists must be fearful that environmental degradation will harm the money trees from which the filthy rich harvest all their wealth.
Otherwise they would be a lot more concerned about the impoverishment of the whole society, top to bottom, by the foolish quest to eliminate industrial pollution by eliminating industry.[/quote]
Have all conservatives turned into 4 year olds? Keeping pollution under control is killing industry? Since when? Germany is much cleaner than the US, and their manufacturing sector is kicking our ass.
The hyperbole and whining. My god, it is endless. We are getting our arses kicked, because we whine when we should be creating real innovations. Pollution is a global problem and kids are being born with extra fingers all the time. Ever heard of Union Carbide, children of thalidimide? The Cuyahoga River burning? We have fought these battles before, and instead of reentering the 19th century, how about if we led the world in improving the environment. We have the brains to do it, but it would take courage and balzzz.
I have yet to see one new, positive idea on this stuff from the Tea Partiers, or Rush Limbaugh, or Glen Beck, or Palin, or Hannity, or Ryan. It all boils down the whining, usually with a bit of flag waving and saber rattling for theater.
These people are champions of those causing climate change, their reactions are completely predictable. Anyone paying attention knows how the media uses these clowns to distract, misinform and drag the argument from one of action to one of anger and doubt.
You are mistaken. The Clean Air Act was enacted into law in 1963 by yet another Democrat controlled Congress and had absolutely nothing to do with President Bush. The act was subsequently amended in 1970, 1977 and 1990. In each case, the Democrats controlled Congress.
Great reasons to vote for a Democrat, thanks for the info.!
OVERVIEW The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 In June 1989 President Bush proposed sweeping revisions to the Clean Air Act. Building on Congressional proposals advanced during the 1980s, the President proposed legislation designed to curb three major threats to the nation's environment and to the health of millions of Americans: acid rain, urban air pollution, and toxic air emissions. The proposal also called for establishing a national permits program to make the law more workable, and an improved enforcement program to help ensure better compliance with the Act.
By large votes, both the House of Representatives (401-21) and the Senate (89-11) passed Clean Air bills that contained the major components of the President's proposals. Both bills also added provisions requiring the phaseout of ozone-depleting chemicals, roughly according to the schedule outlined in international negotiations (Revised Montreal Protocol). The Senate and House bills also added specific research and development provisions, as well as detailed programs to address accidental releases of toxic air pollutants.
Great reasons to vote for a Democrat, thanks for the info.!
LOL, it had no teeth until the Bush amendment in 1990, to this day it's the most sweeping environmental reform in this nations history. It Kills you don't it.
It wasn't government that killed nuclear power, it is corporate America (and rightly so) that unless the government indemnifies insurance companies, cannot get insurance. In addition, no board of directors wants to approve a nuclear project that has a high cost-overrun rate. A plant initially expected to cost $10 billion can end up costing $50 billion.
According to the Sierra Club "Price-Anderson caps the commercial nuclear power industry's liability at $9.1 billion and requires that reactor operators carry only $200 million in primary private insurance for each reactor. Price-Anderson would only provide pennies-on the-dollar in public compensation for damages stemming from a potential nuclear reactor accident, which Sandia National Laboratory Estimates could exceed $500 billion dollars."
How many people in the world have been killed by nuclear power plants, and how many people have been killed by.... oh I don't know, pick one; cars, swimming pools, stairs, skate boards, or even lightning storms?
Officially no they don't but the fact remains it was his:
There is nothing wrong with striving for cleaner ways to conduct business in American industrial complex. we all want cleaner air and water, but it has to be done in a way that makes financial and economic sense. What EPA is doing now, just looks like a bunch of fanatical environmentalists, pushing their personal ideology, and to hell with common sense or any concern for the state of the US economy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It was actually Senator Max Bacus, a Democrat, who submitted the legislation, which includes an additional 150 amendments. None of them proposed or submitted by President Bush (41). See 
