Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

EPA Nominee Suggests New CO2 Rules May Expose Small Emitters
Wall Street Journal ^ | May 6, 2009 | Ian Talley

Posted on 05/06/2009 8:39:00 PM PDT by reaganaut1

New federal greenhouse gas emission regulation could expose a raft of smaller emitters to litigation, a nominee for a key post in the Environmental Protection Agency told lawmakers Thursday.

The potential for smaller emitters to be regulated under the Clean Air Act is one reason why business groups warn that EPA regulation of greenhouse gases could create a cascade of legal and regulatory challenges across a much broader array of sectors. The Obama administration has said that isn't their intent.

Regina McCarthy, nominated to be EPA's Director of Air and Radiation, told lawmakers that even while the government has flexibility in setting the threshold of emitting facilities to be regulated, she acknowledges the risk of lawsuits to challenge those levels for smaller emitters. Ms. McCarthy's office is responsible for drafting federal emission rules.

Sen. John Barrasso (R., Wyo.) has put a hold on Ms. McCarthy's nomination in part because of her responses on the greenhouse gas issue.

Under the Obama administration, the EPA is moving forward to declare greenhouse gas emissions a danger to public health and welfare, which will trigger new rules once finalized. The EPA says that only around 13,000 of the largest emitters, such as refiners, smelters and cement plants would likely be regulated.

Many legal experts say that based on clear Clean Air Act statutes, however, regulations could be applied to any facility that emits more than 100-250 tons a year, including hospitals, schools and farms. Taken in aggregate, farm animals are major greenhouse gas sources because of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from flatulence, belching and manure. Buildings often emit greenhouse gases from internal heating or cooling units.

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: airquality; bhoenvironment; bhoepa; cleanairact; co2; epa; reginamccarthy; second100days

1 posted on 05/06/2009 8:39:02 PM PDT by reaganaut1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

No more beer or carbonated drinks.


2 posted on 05/06/2009 8:47:50 PM PDT by Yo-Yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
Plus what about all those greenhouses I see. Souldn't we tax them like crazy? Perhaps we could put tax tachometers on those big fans that I see at each end of the buildings.

Moving air in or out or through a greenhouse should be taxed and regulated to the hilt.

3 posted on 05/06/2009 8:48:15 PM PDT by 386wt (Striving to be as good as my dog thinks I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Geez, another issue with emissions from farm animals. If they set the threshold low enough, then ALL OF US will be in violation. We exhale C02 with each breath. Sheesh..........


4 posted on 05/06/2009 8:48:37 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

It might be worth it for the government to collapse just to get rid of s*** like this.


5 posted on 05/06/2009 8:52:10 PM PDT by brianr10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego
Geez, another issue with emissions from farm animals. If they set the threshold low enough, then ALL OF US will be in violation. We exhale C02 with each breath. Sheesh..........

The French will be so confused. They'll prepare to "fart in your general direction"...only to find the EPA insisting on immediate payment of taxes before the emission can occur. Taco Bell customers may also be a risk.

6 posted on 05/06/2009 8:55:58 PM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Keep an eye on Senator John Barasso from Wyoming. He is a class act.


7 posted on 05/06/2009 8:56:08 PM PDT by Trteamer ( (Eat Meat, Wear Fur, Own Guns, FReep Leftists, Drive an SUV, Drill A.N.W.R., Drill the Gulf, Vote)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

I FART IN YOUR GENERAL DIRECTION.


8 posted on 05/06/2009 8:56:49 PM PDT by beethovenfan (If Islam is the solution, the "problem" must be freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

“Small emitters” as in homosapiens?


9 posted on 05/06/2009 8:57:18 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Politicians always love to talk about "hard work." What the hell would they know about it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

If there were no people, there would be much less pollution.


10 posted on 05/06/2009 8:59:30 PM PDT by maro (Repeal the 8th Amendment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
The Obama administration has said that isn't their intent.

Well then, that says it all.

If the Obama administration denies "fill-in-the-blanks-here", you can be certain that "fill-in-the-blanks-here" is the truth...

11 posted on 05/06/2009 8:59:59 PM PDT by Zeppo (Save the cheerleader, save the world...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

Hey, as soon as they announce this I will sue to have the entire population of Washington DC Culled in order to reduce carbon emissions.

With all the hot air that comes out of there, the planet should cool by a degree with that action alone.

You are going to see crazy nut-ball radical conservatives bringing this stupid government to its knees.

Are dream of less government will be realized.


12 posted on 05/06/2009 9:04:59 PM PDT by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
The small businesses and farms are exactly who they will go after. They are the ones the government can push around without much concern that they will have big time lawyers to fight it out in court.

They will use this as a revenue generator from fines. The owners will have to raise their prices to cover the increased costs or be run out of business. Meanwhile, Barack can claim he increased jobs for more bureaucrats and lawyers.

13 posted on 05/06/2009 9:07:17 PM PDT by eggman (Obama's Spread the Wealth will work just as well as Spread the Liabilities (sub-prime mortgages))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
The real danger here is the EPA and their screwball mentality.
14 posted on 05/06/2009 9:07:24 PM PDT by Cheetahcat (Osamabama Wright kind of Racist! We are in a state of War with Democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego
***NEWSFLASH***

Algore to be taxed based on personal carbon emissions.

"This is unconsci... uh, unreasona... uh, bad," exclaimed the divinity school drop out. "They can't tax me like a farm animal! Can't they tell the diff?"

"Well, no," remarked an EPA official. "Though farm animals may actually be brighter. You decide. Pick the farm animal..."


15 posted on 05/06/2009 9:14:47 PM PDT by Entrepreneur (The environmental movement is filled with watermelons - green on the outside, red on the inside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 386wt
... what about all those greenhouses...(?)

Many of them have CO2 generators to accelerate plant growth.

No food for you!

16 posted on 05/06/2009 9:16:54 PM PDT by kitchen (One battle rifle for each person, and a spare for each pair.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

“Geez, another issue with emissions from farm animals. If they set the threshold low enough, then ALL OF US will be in violation. We exhale C02 with each breath. Sheesh..........”

So we will have to kill all the animals. But then with Ethanol there won’t be any corn. Since gas prices will go sky high, we won’t be able to get the food to market.

Now combine this with our health care rationing in that some people will just have to die.

SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!!!!


17 posted on 05/06/2009 9:23:47 PM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Welcome to Germany, circa 1933.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

Oh no, there goes the baked beans.


18 posted on 05/06/2009 9:57:12 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Quick justice for the senseless killing of Marine Lance Cpl. Robert Crutchfield.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
The EPA says that only around 13,000 of the largest emitters...would likely be regulated.

Riiiggghhttt. We all know there's NEVER any expansion or scope creep in any government program. Why I can't think of a single program that ever escaped it's initial confines to become a devouring behemoth.

These bastards always follow the same modus operandi -- sell the programs as small and contained, then grow the hell out of them over the ensuing years. Government needs to be chopped by 3/4, not expanded any more.

19 posted on 05/06/2009 10:07:06 PM PDT by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zeppo

If you haven’t figure it out by now you are in trouble. Behind the scenes Wall Street is scheming to set up another scheme call cap and trade. Perfect business, which Wall Street just hire small staff of traders, software engineers to write the buy and sell software, some lawyers and lobbysists. Viola you have a new business that utilizes the government to declare which industries are dirty. Then Wall Street will underwrite the deals to send these dirty industries to China and India. Thus our country can increase the amounts of clean credit and accuses China/India of being too dirty thus in order to comply with international rules they must buy clean US credits to the highest bid. Wall Street pockets commissions and the US government pockets new taxes. Problem begins for Main Street Americans is when all the dirty industries are gone, and Wall Street need a new source for clean credit, thus they will lobby Congress to declare other industries in the US to be dirty. These assets will be sold to China/India and the US will begin the cycle of accuse, sell to highest bidder, and more money is pocketed by Wall Street/Government.


20 posted on 05/06/2009 10:09:55 PM PDT by Fee (Peace, prosperity, jobs and common sense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: eggman

Yep , they have to make sure to get rid of the middle class to gain complete control.
They will own they mega farms and everything else that produces... this is all about having complete control. The little people (non elites) will be kept busy by working on their plantations or standing in line daily to get their rationed food .

green = communism easily sold to a morally corrupt society

This has all been done before to bad people don’t study history.


21 posted on 05/06/2009 10:11:43 PM PDT by Lera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo
Eat mo beans!


22 posted on 05/07/2009 12:05:48 AM PDT by Islander7 (If you want to anger conservatives, lie to them. If you want to anger liberals, tell them the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Power plants could greatly reduce their CO2 tax by bubbling their output gasses through water, which takes out much of the CO2 and creates carbonated water.

The carbonated water could then be piped to living green plants, where it can be proven that the plants thrive and grow faster[1], and with better drought resistance[2] due to the CO2 absorption through their roots.

[1]EFFECTS OF CARBON DIOXIDE ENRICHED IRRIGATION ON YIELD...
http://www.actahort.org/members/showpdf?booknrarnr=559_32

[2]Water demand varies inversely with CO2 concentration in soil.
http://www.geocities.com/profadrian/CO2RootAbsorption.html


23 posted on 05/07/2009 12:25:57 AM PDT by Future Useless Eater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1; WL-law; Genesis defender; proud_yank; FrPR; enough_idiocy; Desdemona; rdl6989; ...
 


Beam me to Planet Gore !

24 posted on 05/07/2009 3:36:10 AM PDT by steelyourfaith ("The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." - Lady Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

“Small Emitters”

You mean like noses?


25 posted on 05/07/2009 5:51:30 AM PDT by RoadTest (For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus - I Tim 2:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beethovenfan

26 posted on 05/07/2009 6:09:02 AM PDT by Sharkfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

These insane idiots are going to destroy the economy of this country right down to the mom and pop level.

This needs to be fought tooth and nail. Businesses should get together and start suing the EPA/government wholesale. Jam them up in litigation from every direction.


27 posted on 05/07/2009 6:20:12 AM PDT by headstamp 2 (Spay or Neuter your liberal today!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

“Under the Obama administration, the EPA is moving forward to declare greenhouse gas emissions a danger to public health and welfare, which will trigger new rules once finalized. The EPA says that only around 13,000 of the largest emitters, such as refiners, smelters and cement plants would likely be regulated. “

PING - reminder that we are in comment period for this. We need to send the EPA a message: CO2 is NOT a pollutant!


28 posted on 05/07/2009 6:44:09 AM PDT by WOSG (Why is Obama trying to bankrupt America with $16 trillion in spending over the next 4 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Future Useless Eater

PING for great use of CO2 in water.


29 posted on 05/07/2009 6:45:41 AM PDT by WOSG (Why is Obama trying to bankrupt America with $16 trillion in spending over the next 4 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
Under the Obama administration, the EPA is moving forward to declare greenhouse gas emissions a danger to public health and welfare

If, for the purposes of discussion, one might suspend disbelief long enough to think human created CO2 sources had a sufficient impact on the global climate to cause global warming (otherwise, the greenhouse effect would not be an issue), just who has provided data that a little warming is a bad thing?

Certainly there is enough sub arctic landmass to, as climate zones shift, replace the current temperate zones in land area and food production. So, aside from flushing out a few nearshore rat warrens, what's the problem?

30 posted on 05/07/2009 10:43:36 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

“If, for the purposes of discussion, one might suspend disbelief long enough to think human created CO2 sources had a sufficient impact on the global climate to cause global warming (otherwise, the greenhouse effect would not be an issue), just who has provided data that a little warming is a bad thing? “

There have been different studies, which the IPCC cherry-picks to assume the worst-case.

“Certainly there is enough sub arctic landmass to, as climate zones shift, replace the current temperate zones in land area and food production. So, aside from flushing out a few nearshore rat warrens, what’s the problem?”
It’s not credible to assume the birds and animals can shift with it, and farmers can be hit. Then again, the whole “change=bad” is an interesting one-sided assumption.

Reality is more balanced.


31 posted on 05/07/2009 3:53:49 PM PDT by WOSG (Why is Obama trying to bankrupt America with $16 trillion in spending over the next 4 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson