Stop the Unconstitutional, Jobs-Killing, EPA Regulation of Carbon Dioxide
Written by Larry Greenley Friday, 29 January 2010 11:43
Just in time to bolster President Obama's "green" credentials at the UN Conference on Climate Change in Copenhagen, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced on December 7, 2009: "Today I'm proud to announce that EPA has finalized its endangerment finding on greenhouse gas pollution and is now authorized and obligated to make reasonable efforts to reduce greenhouse pollutants under the Clean Air Act" (view video).
So, even though the cap and trade energy tax bill was stalled in the U.S. Senate, President Obama was able to point to the EPA announcement in Copenhagen to show the commitment of the U.S. government to take measures to reduce greenhouse gases as part of the whole global warming/climate change charade being participated in by our political, news media, and academic elites.
Fortunately, there is a movement in Congress to prohibit the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases. There are two bills in the House and one proposed amendment in the Senate to do just this.
The first bill in the House is H.R. 391 which was introduced by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) on January 9, 2009 and which currently has 151 cosponsors. The purpose of this bill is to: (1) stop the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases by amending the Clean Air Act to exclude greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide; and (2) by expliciting stating, "Nothing in the Clean Air Act shall be treated as authorizing or requiring the regulation of climate change or global warming."
The second bill in the House is H.R. 4396 which was introduced by Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.) on December 16, 2009. This bill would prohibit EPA regulation of greenhouse gases by amending the Clean Air Act to provide that greenhouse gases are not subject to the Act.
Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Ala.) has taken a different approach in the Senate. She has introduced a resolution, which is supported by 35 Republicans and three Democrats so far, that could be used as an amendment and attached to the bill of her choice or introduced as a standalone bill. The purpose of this resolution is "To prohibit the use of funds [by the EPA for one year] to regulate or control carbon dioxide from any sources other than a mobile source or to treat carbon dioxide as a pollutant subject to certain regulations." Senator Murkowski's approach is much narrower than the two House bills in that it only prohibits EPA regulation of carbon dioxide for one year, and then only for non-mobile sources.
Although Senator Murkowski's resolution is a step in the right direction and deserves support, the approach of H.R. 391 is much better and should be supported for passage in both House and Senate.
Fortunately, there is a movement in Congress to prohibit the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases. There are two bills in the House and one proposed amendment in the Senate to do just this.
Are you saying CO2 emissions are good? Breathe that CO2! YUMMY!
“I used to think, when I was younger and didn't know any better, that surely whoever was elected the next time would be better than the current president. But I learned a long time ago that it gets worse every (s)election, not better.” -- James Deffenbach, circa Jan. 2010
Contact your representative and senators and tell them to "stop the unconstitutional, jobs-killing, EPA regulation of carbon dioxide."
I refuse to parlay our individual rights to a clean, natural environment with a pile of ignorant politicians in Washington DC.
“I used to think, when I was younger and didn't know any better, that surely whoever was elected the next time would be better than the current president. But I learned a long time ago that it gets worse every (s)election, not better.” -- James Deffenbach, circa Jan. 2010
“I used to think, when I was younger and didn't know any better, that surely whoever was elected the next time would be better than the current president. But I learned a long time ago that it gets worse every (s)election, not better.” -- James Deffenbach, circa Jan. 2010
But what are we going to do about the Argon problem? At 0.934% of the composition of air as opposed to Carbon Dioxide's 0.033%, the Argon threat is 28 times greater than that of CO2.
Will the Argon tax be 28 times greater than the Carbon tax? Who will save us from the Argon menace?
Breathe that Argon! YUMMY!
Godfrey Smith: Mike, I wouldn't worry. Prosperity is just around the corner. Mike Flaherty: Yeah, it's been there a long time. I wish I knew which corner. My Man Godfrey (1936)
Criminy, you want an oxygen tax now? At 20.947% of the air, the Oxygen Tax will have to be 635 times the CO2 tax.
I hope you never get to Nitrogen.
Godfrey Smith: Mike, I wouldn't worry. Prosperity is just around the corner. Mike Flaherty: Yeah, it's been there a long time. I wish I knew which corner. My Man Godfrey (1936)
“I used to think, when I was younger and didn't know any better, that surely whoever was elected the next time would be better than the current president. But I learned a long time ago that it gets worse every (s)election, not better.” -- James Deffenbach, circa Jan. 2010
To be free and able about our respective walks of life, a little organization goes a long way ensuring our family and friends and businesses are successful. Surely, you don't argue this specific perspective.
“I used to think, when I was younger and didn't know any better, that surely whoever was elected the next time would be better than the current president. But I learned a long time ago that it gets worse every (s)election, not better.” -- James Deffenbach, circa Jan. 2010
No problemo. I'm building this giant dehumidifier where the World Trade Centers used to stand. Biggest structure ever built.
The thing runs on whale oil and coral.
Godfrey Smith: Mike, I wouldn't worry. Prosperity is just around the corner. Mike Flaherty: Yeah, it's been there a long time. I wish I knew which corner. My Man Godfrey (1936)
what's the total mass of co2 in the atmosphere? answer: 3000 gigatons
how much has the concentration of atmospheric co2 increased since the start of the industrial revolution? answer: 35%
how many tons of of man-produced co2 have accumulated in the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution? answer: 1000 gigtons, aka, a trillion tons (778 gigatons, to be more precise)
at what point will the planet warm up enough to start thawing the methane clathrates? answer: it may have started already, judging by the resumption of methane increase in the atmosphere.
compared to co2, how potent is methane as a warming gas? answer: depending on the time span of the comparison, 25 to l00 times as potent.