Skip to comments.Move Afoot in the Senate to Can EPA CO2 Regs
Posted on 01/24/2010 6:26:50 PM PST by mimi from mi
January 23, 2010 - by Marlo Lewis Page 1 of 2 Next ->On Thursday, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, introduced a resolution of disapproval, under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), to overturn EPAs endangerment finding (the agencys official determination that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare) . Murkowskis floor statement and a press release are available here.
The resolution has 38 co-sponsors, including three Democrats (Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana). If all 41 Senate Republicans vote for the measure, Sen. Murkowski will need only seven additional Democrats to vote yes to obtain the 51 votes required for passage. (Under Senate rules, a CRA resolution of disapproval cannot be filibustered and thus does not need 60 votes to ensure passage.)
NASA said CO2 was not culprit to global anything..
NASA is filled with global warming liars just like their boy Senator Bill Nelson.
Nixon did some bad things. Not Watergate, which was a big propaganda fraud, but liberal bad things. Like establishing the EPA.
That kind of regulation should have been left to the states.
While we’re at it, we need to dump the EPA. That mob is out of control.
IT STARTED THERE .. FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSES TO GET FUNDING..
>> Nixon did some bad things... [like] establishing the EPA.
I wonder how much dough we could save by abolishing the EPA?
>> What am I gonna do with all these signs I ordered??
ROFL! Those will sell! Make tee-shirts and coffee cups!
Repeal, reverse, rollback.
That should be the mantra for 2010. If you get elected as a Republican, your mission is to repeal, reverse, and rollback some of this stupid liberal crap.
Even if healthcare is defeated, we still only got what we have today. Do I get any of my money back or my freedoms restored? Do I get the oppressive thumb of government of my head?
Does this sound like victory to you? It’s not enough to play defense anymore. Start with the most egregious laws as far as our freedom is concerned, and focus your efforts there.
The opposition doesn’t settle for maintaining ground. They go a little at a time, taking what they can get and always trying for more. And they make progress. Despite the fact that this is a center right country, the laws keep moving left.
We need to elect running backs, not linebackers. We need to move the ball.
And yes, I made up that metaphor while watching the NFC Championship game.
Damage control, meaningless POS, to help out the famous 3 buy offs, ....
It can be harder to lay people off in bad economic times. This should have been done earlier. But there’s no question that huge amounts of money could be saved by simply shutting down some of the federal bureaucracy completely.
The EPA is one example. Maybe give notice that they will be shut down and laid off in three years, say. That would give the states time enough to put any necessary regulations in place if they choose to. And it would be more competitive, forcing them to be more sensible, since states with too many regs would lose to their neighbors, but states with ugly pollution also would lose.
The Department of Education is another. You could shut down the whole damned thing, and it wouldn’t be missed. Local and state control of education is more than enough.
Plenty of others, too, but start with those first.
Only problem is, it ain’t gonna happen. Not unless we get up to 50% unemployment and the whole system collapses. But they’ll still try to cut all the wrong things first. They always do.
The EPA is just - WRONG - on the effects of carbon dioxide on global warming, and the supposed effects of its “endangerment”.
Endangerment for what? Green growing plants THRIVE on elevated CO2 levels, simultaneously manufacturing even MORE oxygen, and sequestering the CO2 in various carbohydrates, as sugars, starches, cellulose, and lignins, all of which have been found to be HIGHLY useful in providing for the needs of living humanity. Plants are the ultimate scavangers and capitalistic organisms, taking raw materials (carbon dioxide, various forms of fixed nitrogen, water, and a number of different minerals dissolved in the substrate on which they are growing), and turn them into tasty food for game and domesticated livestock, which are in turn transformed into daily sustenance for humanity.
In addition, the plants themselves provide a large degree of sustenance for those who abhor the idea of eating flesh of a motile living life form, as they may, in certain combinations, satisfactorily substitute for the consumption of animal flesh.
Given an opportunity, plants WILL grow - they need warmth somewhere in the mid-point or below between the freezing point and vaporization point of water, ADEQUATE carbon dioxide (plants wither and die of CO2 starvation at below 250 parts per million atmospheric carbon dioxide), and the effects of sunlight to provide the necessary energy for photosynthesis. Of all the varieties of plant life on this planet, some will grow at whatever extreme conditions that may apply at most localities. Obviously, mountain tops, arid deserts, ice sheets and ocean depths do not meet these criteria, but most everywhere else does. There is probably a far greater bulk of growing green plants in the surface waters of this world than there is of ALL terrestrial plant life.
The demand upon humanity, and their greatest stewardship, would be to cultivate and encourage this fecundity of plant growth, and what is the limiting factor? Carbon dioxide. We can and must do all in our means to INCREASE the levels of carbon dioxide, to the extent possible.
There is certainly no effective means of reducing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Even the most zealous of bureaucrats has admitted to that circumstance. So why would we commit ourselves to strangle the production of CO2 for some objective that could never be gained anyway?
Sure, control the sulfur, the nitrous oxides, the hydrocarbon volatiles, the carbon particulate matter, and even some of the heavy metals that come out of the fly ash. But do NOT regulate the amount of water vapor and carbon dioxide from burning fuel, as the only way to do this is not burn fuel.
Burning fuel is what provides the energy, and ultimately the wealth, that allows humanity to prosper. Take away the transformation of energy, and we are all paupers.
Clean coal is not an oxymoron, as some of the more ignorant types have asserted. Sure, it is easy to write on a poster and march around, but enthusiasm alone has never generated one iota of wealth. Enthusiasm has to be combined with SOME degree of intelligence.
more bi-partisan than the healthcare bill . . . but where are all the other “moderate” Rats???????
Between this and their mercury laws we could restart the economy by defunding them.
Pray for Freedom
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.