Posted on 07/11/2008 11:50:26 AM PDT by tobyhill
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration on Friday rejected regulating greenhouse gases blamed for global warming, saying it would cause too many job losses.
In a 588-page federal notice, the Environmental Protection made no finding on whether global warming poses a threat to people's health, reversing an earlier conclusion at the insistence of the White House and officially kicking any decision on a solution to the next president and Congress.
The White House on Thursday rejected EPA's conclusion three weeks earlier that the 1970 Clean Air Act "can be both workable and effective for addressing global climate change." Instead, EPA said Friday that law is "ill-suited" for dealing with climate change.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Libs who ignore the courts = good.
Conservatives who ignore the courts = bad.
I still don’t understand how people bash Bush on global warming. That is one issue where he has stood his ground and only given out a few peanuts. For the big issues, Bush has thumbed his nose at the liberals and MSM, and did the right thing.
Spot on!
The eco-terrorist/whacko leftist loons who are actually dumb enough to think we are going to allow them and their hired ‘RATs in government and the courts to ruin our economy, just don’t live in the REAL world.
Bush has thumbed his nose at the liberals and MSM..
—
and then sort of bragged about it too. :-)
President George Bush: ‘Goodbye from the world’s biggest polluter’
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2043520/posts
“the Supreme Court ruled last year that the government has authority under the Clean Act to regulate greenhouse gases as a pollutant.”
At some point, the Executive and the Congress just need to tell the Court to butt out and mind their own business. The Supreme Court has no power to regulate anything.
You really do have to give it up for this Administration’s EPA. They’ve also stopped filing the frivolous wetlands suits based on ponds and lakes that have no connection to navigable waters. They’ve started enforcing the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act as they were actually written, not as the bureaucrats and enviros have wished them to be. If Congress doesn’t like it, it needs to write some new laws. Fir too long, Congress has punted all this stuff to the bureaucrats and the courts so they don’t have to do any heavy lifting that might actually cost them votes back home.
Just because the Court ruled that the government CAN regulate greenhouse gass under the CAA, doesn’t mean it HAS to. The Court has no power to compel a federal agency to write new regulations based on an old law. Of course, that’s what the enviros who brough the lawsuit think it means, but they are wrong.
“....ice is also great, and would suffice.”
Frost
I’m chalking this one up in the ‘plus’ column for President Bush.
But...
Who’s vetting the bureaucrats?
The latest study suggests that higher temperatures in Europe may be a result of less particulates in the air allowing more sunlight to warm the atmosphere. That is cleaner air equals higher temperatures.
I have always wondered how anyone falls for this myself. If the earth is dying and the only way to save it is to cease human activity, why would it be worth saving? I just don't get it? Do I want to change my behavior just so a bunch of Polar Bears can frolic in the arctic? Why would I care about their happiness over my own? To what end?
“Kieran Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity,...”
If I had a name like that, I think I’d change it to Bob Suckling, or something much more mainstream.
Militant
Welcome to the next great depression.
We've got to insist - DEMAND - that liberals abide by the Heller decision. Just like they do with abortion laws.
Wow. I bet that's a financial black hole.
Uh, I don't think you can say that anymore.....
: )
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.