Posted on 03/31/2015 9:50:49 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
o k
How I wish that more people could see things that clearly.
Okay, let me rephrase it — how much will it cost, poor, inner city families to heat their homes and fill up their gas tanks? Or the middle class who are barely making ends meet as it is.
It’s all part of The Plan.
What would it take to get all the country’s coal-fired generation plants to shut down - voluntarily - for 6 hours one day? Could we not organize such a demonstration to show these damn fools that they actually need this dirty ‘ol king coal?
I'm pretty sure that he and his followers would actually like that approach.
How much will Iranian nukes contribute to AGW?
NYT faithfully following Orwell's corruption of language.
You want an environment without nasty "greenhouse gas pollution?" I know where there's one. It's called "the moon." Go.
“And how much will it cost us. No one ever seems to ask this simple but important question.”
And what is their mitigation plan if they overshoot the target and the earth goes into a freeze?
I’ll betcha that regardless that the states have never amended the Constitution to grant the feds the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for climate purposes that Obama’s blueprint on PC climate change doesn’t included the following.
Obama’s blueprint probably doesn’t include working with Congress to successfully petition the states for a climate change amendment to the Constitution so that the feds actually have the constitutional authority to regulate climate issues.
Nothing to see here, LOOK AT INDIANA...
His program can not be sustained without congress and/or the White House.
Correct. In 2007 SCOTUS ruled that CO2 was a pollutant(Massachusetts v EPA). SCOTUS told EPA to regulate CO2 with the Clean Air Act(1972). Which means they need nothing from Congress to proceed.
But, Obama(and Bush) wanted Congress to preempt EPA.
Congress debated cap and tax versus cape and trade in 2008. Then Sen Obama supported cap and tax but cap and trade won out so Congress would try to pass cap and trade beginning in 2009.
The House tried in 2009 and the Senate tried in 2010, but both failed.
After the Senate failed in 2010, Obama/EPA began moving forward with their CO2 regs.
The first set of regs there in 2010 dealt with new permits or new plants. Regs on existing plants wouldn't come until 2014.
After the new permit regs were issued in 2010, many lawsuits were filed and the court would combine all the suits into a single case called Utility Air Regulatory Group vs EPA. That reached SCOTUS and they ruled almost totally for Obama, but they did put some minor limits on the permitting process. That ruling was about June 15, 2014.
Just prior to this, on about June 1, 2014, Obama would issue his regs on existing permits/plants. Two lawsuits have already been filed including one from 12 coal states. EPA will issue the final rule later this year, after which there will probably be more suits filed. That will have to go all the way to SCOTUS.
look at reply 52
But let him and the other Democrats explain that to the rest of the hardworking middle class fools. If they had to explain themselves, they'd be less eager to push it.
Even the brain dead masses who agree that “we need to do something about global warming” would think twice if they knew that it would cost them more. A lot more.
I didn’t mean to lecture, I was just relating what I’ve learned in many discussion with the left who accuse us of being ‘climate change deniers’ and the fact is we were never climate change deniers, we fully acknowledge the climate changes- however, it is NOT a crisis, NOR is it caused by man
The FACT is all of the CO2 man produces makes up only 0.00137% of the atmosphere- that’s it- and there is no way this side of hell that one one-thousandth’s of a percent can cause ANY climate change even IF CO2 could cause climate change, which it can’t- but that’s another story
Anyway- I’ve learned that to hut up the left who claim we are ‘climate change deniers’ the best way is to tell them we are NOT change deniers, but we ARE “MAN_CAUSED climate change” deniers and we have the evidence to back up our position
[[That reached SCOTUS and they ruled almost totally for Obama,]]
Gee what a shocker- they ruled FOR dear leader WITHOUT ANY scientific evidence to back up the claim that man is causing climate change- The judges I n the supreme court should be disbarred and kicked to the curb for being so subjective and for legislating from the bench on issues they haven’t got a clue about!
[[EPA will issue the final rule later this year,]]
Lemme guess- their ruling will be that ‘we must act quickly to save the planet’ and that ‘these regulations are just”
[[And what is their mitigation plan if they overshoot the target and the earth goes into a freeze?]]
TAX the people more- that’ll fix it
Hmmmmm...so, all the pain (and expense) accrues to America for the next ten years, while China ramps up production for the next 15 years.
Do I detect a pattern here, e.g. Bergdahl (5 for 1), Iran - sanctions go away now (nothing in return) - free ticket to ride the bomb after 10 tens?
The American President - full throttle liberal style.
Hey Jim - Ready for Hillary?
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.