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 ...
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.
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
“Small Emitters”
You mean like noses?
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.
“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!
PING for great use of CO2 in water.
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?
“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.
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.
