Skip to comments.EPA Nominee Suggests New CO2 Rules May Expose Small Emitters
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 ...
No more beer or carbonated drinks.
Moving air in or out or through a greenhouse should be taxed and regulated to the hilt.
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..........
It might be worth it for the government to collapse just to get rid of s*** like this.
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.
Keep an eye on Senator John Barasso from Wyoming. He is a class act.
I FART IN YOUR GENERAL DIRECTION.
“Small emitters” as in homosapiens?
If there were no people, there would be much less pollution.
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...
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.
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.
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..."
Many of them have CO2 generators to accelerate plant growth.
No food for you!
“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!!!!!
Oh no, there goes the baked beans.
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.
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.
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, and with better drought resistance due to the CO2 absorption through their roots.
EFFECTS OF CARBON DIOXIDE ENRICHED IRRIGATION ON YIELD...
Water demand varies inversely with CO2 concentration in soil.
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.