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.
The Environmental Protection Agency has formally declared carbon dioxide and five other heat-trapping gases to be pollutants that endanger public health and welfare. Therefore, they will be regulating them.
WHY? Money for Feds and so Feds can save face.
Least one forget, we exhale carbon dioxide (CO2) everytime we breathe. Plants use CO2 to live and grow. They then release oxygen into the air. Remember that whole cycle from elementary science class?
This is one more step by the Fed admin to quickly push through Cap and Trade. Threats to congress are - if you don't quickly pass a bill, the EPA will take action.
The Feds are basing their Global Warming theories on the IPCC model and report. However, especially within the last months, a huge and growing number of scientists, etc. are coming out in opposition of the IPCC findings - even those who served on the IPCC committee.
The Feds are establishing national policy based on what may be inaccuarate findings. I am in support of new and more efficient methods of energy but question the rush to Cap and Trade.
Studies, even by the govt, show Cap and Trade will create an increase in energy bills (electric, gasoline, etc.)
Can we really afford this when our economy is in the tank, over 2 million jobs have been lost in the last 3 months, etc.?
Why is the govt in a big rush to pass Cap and Trade?
1. Money. Cap and Trade is a cash cow expected to bring in billions a year. Who pays for this - we do by increased energy costs.
2. Save face. If nothing is immediately done and "the Gore theories" do not happen - the Feds will look like fools. If they quickly pass Cap and Trade and nothing happens - the Feds can claim they saved the world.
We keep hearing reports that the Artic ice is melting and the cause is CO2. A report on 4/8/09 by NASA says the problem is aerosols, not CO2.
Next step for the EPA ruling of CO2 as a pollutant:
The proposed endangerment finding now enters the public comment period, which is the next step in the deliberative process EPA must undertake before issuing final findings.
Quote:
The Environmental Protection Agency, with approval from President Barack Obama, has ruled that carbon dioxide is a pollutant that endangers human health or welfare under the Clean Air Act and, therefore, must be regulated.
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/04/epa-co2-is-a-da.html
Quote:
Jackson said while the [epa] agency is prepared to move forward with regulations under the Clean Air Act, the Obama administration would prefer that Congress addressed the climate issue through "cap-and-trade" legislation limiting pollution that can contribute to global warming. U.S. Set To Regulate Global Warming Gases - CBS News and several other sites
Quote:
... has the authority to address CO2 emissions without Congress doing anything," he said. "Now do we want to sit back and let the EPA do it? .... U.S. Rep. Nick Joe Rahall Rahall Sorts Details on Cap and Trade Policies - State Journal - STATEJOURNAL.com (http://www.statejournal.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=56812 - broken link)
Indeed, the model suggests aerosols likely account for 45 percent or more of the warming that has occurred in the Arctic during the last three decades. The results were published in the April issue of Nature Geoscience. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming_aerosols.html
Quote:
Though there are several varieties of aerosols, previous research has shown that two types -- sulfates and black carbon -- play an especially critical role in regulating climate change. Both are products of human activity. NASA - Aerosols May Drive a Significant Portion of Arctic Warming
Quote:
Sulfates, which come primarily from the burning of coal and oil, scatter incoming solar radiation and have a net cooling effect on climate. Over the past three decades, the United States and European countries have passed a series of laws that have reduced sulfate emissions by 50 percent. While improving air quality and aiding public health, the result has been less atmospheric cooling from sulfates. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming_aerosols.html
Quote:
At the same time, black carbon emissions have steadily risen, largely because of increasing emissions from Asia. Black carbon -- small, soot-like particles produced by industrial processes and the combustion of diesel and biofuels -- absorb incoming solar radiation and have a strong warming influence on the atmosphere. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming_aerosols.html
Congress will preempt the Clean Air Act with a narrow, moderate, and tailored legislative response. The endangerment finding is a stunt to force its hand.
Congress will preempt the Clean Air Act with a narrow, moderate, and tailored legislative response. The endangerment finding is a stunt to force its hand.
It is a stunt.
I HOPE Congress comes out with a moderate response but Obama and team are really pushing for Cap and Trade.
I am worried.
We keep hearing reports that the Artic ice is melting and the cause is CO2. A report on 4/8/09 by NASA says the problem is aerosols, not CO2.
Aerosols produce a net cooling effect. Don't fall into the Rush Limbaugh spinzone.
Also, a few of many things to point out about the antarctic article. Climate change doesn't mean warming everywhere. The weakening and change of certain currents can cause warming and precip anomalies in certain areas. Even if most of the ice on the eastern end is in the water (which I question), melting of ice thats in water decreases ocean salinity continuing this feedback loop.
Opponents of dealing with global warming oppose it for reasons other than scientific reasons. This ultimately weakens their position by making them appear to be the equivalent of Creation Scientists. The wiser course would simply be to admit that the problem exists and get down to the debate of what we should actually be doing about it. All this other fluff and rubbish is simply delaying that actually necessary debate...
The Environmental Protection Agency has formally declared carbon dioxide and five other heat-trapping gases to be pollutants that endanger public health and welfare. Therefore, they will be regulating them.
WHY? Money for Feds and so Feds can save face.
Least one forget, we exhale carbon dioxide (CO2) everytime we breathe. Plants use CO2 to live and grow. They then release oxygen into the air. Remember that whole cycle from elementary science class?
This is one more step by the Fed admin to quickly push through Cap and Trade. Threats to congress are - if you don't quickly pass a bill, the EPA will take action.
The Feds are basing their Global Warming theories on the IPCC model and report. However, especially within the last months, a huge and growing number of scientists, etc. are coming out in opposition of the IPCC findings - even those who served on the IPCC committee.
The Feds are establishing national policy based on what may be inaccuarate findings. I am in support of new and more efficient methods of energy but question the rush to Cap and Trade.
Studies, even by the govt, show Cap and Trade will create an increase in energy bills (electric, gasoline, etc.)
Can we really afford this when our economy is in the tank, over 2 million jobs have been lost in the last 3 months, etc.?
Why is the govt in a big rush to pass Cap and Trade?
1. Money. Cap and Trade is a cash cow expected to bring in billions a year. Who pays for this - we do by increased energy costs.
2. Save face. If nothing is immediately done and "the Gore theories" do not happen - the Feds will look like fools. If they quickly pass Cap and Trade and nothing happens - the Feds can claim they saved the world.
We keep hearing reports that the Artic ice is melting and the cause is CO2. A report on 4/8/09 by NASA says the problem is aerosols, not CO2.
Next step for the EPA ruling of CO2 as a pollutant:
The proposed endangerment finding now enters the public comment period, which is the next step in the deliberative process EPA must undertake before issuing final findings.
Cap and Trade?
More like Crap and Tirade!
Everyone give a big hand to Al Gore - a scientist of the ages.
As I've said to the climate change loonies for a long time, if you want to stop polluting then hold your breath.
What I'd like to know from that crowd is the date when everything was considered normal?
As now they say whether the earth is getting warmer or cooler it is all our fault. So what is the normal temperature of the earth and on what date was the climate considered normal? I'd like a good answer.
Behind all this climate change nonsense it's all about money, power and control.
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.
