"Journal Falsely Claims 'EPA Decided In 2009 That All Of A Sudden' CO2 Was A Pollutant"
I don't dispute the fact that the EPA has the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases, because when it comes to environmental law of any kind, it's pretty much an anything-goes game as far as EPA regulations are concerned. Thanks to a Democrat-run Congress and a phony left wing Republican president in Richard Nixon, the EPA has been setting soviet-style industrial policy for 40 years, and it's despicable.
What I am going to dispute, however, is MMFA's notion that regulating carbon dioxide is not a powergrab by the EPA. You don't have to be acting outside the law to make a power grab. Adolf Hitler did not topple the German government, he successfully passed the Enabling Act in the Reichstag without a single shot being fired at the members of the Reich. The Enabling Act made Hitler an absolute ruler. The rest is history. But the point is that under MMFA's logic, Hitler did not make a power grab.
In the case of the EPA, they ARE making a power grab because they are regulating an element that causes neither pollution nor global warming. Here are the facts on CO2:
"CO2 is necessary to plant and animal life on Earth. Unfortunately, the positive effects of CO2 in our atmosphere have not been given proper consideration within the legislative, judicial, and regulatory proceedings. Plant photosynthesis processes use CO2 for growth and create oxygen. More CO2 in the atmosphere will increase plant growth as thousands of controlled greenhouse research records prove. These same studies prove that most plants do not grow at CO2 concentration of less than 150 ppm. They further demonstrate that a rise in CO2 levels from 280 ppm to 385 ppm has increased average plant growth and required less water consumption to accomplish that growth"
Last I checked, increasing plant growth and more efficient natural usage of water is NOT pollution. Its bio-diversity.
And here are the facts on global warming:
Data from the very organization that is used as the De Facto Church of man made global warming-the IPCC-disproves the idea that humans have caused global warming. According to IPCC data, the earth's temperature has gone up from -0.4 degrees celsius to 0.3 degrees celsius since 1860. This would seem to suggest that the earth has been warming because of the industrialization and burning of fossil fuels by human beings, and indeed, CO2 levels have indeed taken a sharp increase since 1860 (which for the sake of argument we'll attribute to human beings). HOWEVER, there are two things that must be noticed:
1. The sharp increase that you see in carbon levels since 1860 corresponds with a relatively flat increase in temperature, which suggests that the link between humans spewing all that carbon and an increase in temperature is pretty weak, and certainly is not strong enough to pass job-killing, freedom killing legislation such as cap and trade.
2. During the nuclear revolution of 1940 to 1970, we humans created all these nukes and blew them up via multiple tests, not to mention we built all these cars and tanks and planes and used them for wars, which spewed a ton of crap into the air and caused carbon levels to rise from about 290 PPM's in 1940 to 330 by 1970, a significantly sharp increase. But despite of all this, the global temperature went DOWN from 0.1 degrees celcius in 1940 to -0.1 degrees celcius in 1970!!
After this 30 year cooling period, climatologists around the world freaked out over 'global cooling,' and they claimed that it was caused by...you guessed it, human being beings! They claimed that less sunlight was reaching the earth because pollutants emitted by humans were blocking the sun. They claimed that the earth's temperature would decrease by 6 degrees celcius in 10 years. Time Magazine ran an article in 1974 predicting a new ice age. The global cooling scare-mongers got alot of their information from Dr. James Hansen, who was the Director of the NASA Institute for Space Studies. But today, Hansen has done a 180 on man made global cooling is now a lead advisor to Al Gore in the crusade against man made global warming.
What does this mean? It means that the hysteria of man made global cooling was FALSE! It was a FRAUD! None of their predictions on global cooling came true, even as more and more greenhouse gases were spit into the atmosphere. And yet, these same eco-terrorists want us Americans to give away our freedoms in the name of their new scare tactic: man made global warming. Which brings me back to the decrease in temperature seen from 1940-1970: if we humans are the cause of global warming, then why the heck did the temperature go DOWN even as we were spewing all those greenhouse and gases and nuclear energy into the atmosphere? The answer is that if we humans really did cause global warming, then the temperature would have gone way UP during that 30 year period, not DOWN. The fact that it went down strongly suggests that humans could not possibly cause global warming.
"But Poole1Dan, that's just a natural fluctuation in the earths temperature! The long term pattern of global warming still persists, and its caused by us evil humans!"
Oh really? Well if natural fluctuations are what caused the decrease from 1940-1970 despite all the crap we were spewing into the atmosphere, then does that NOT prove my point that NATURE determines the global temperature, not humans? Furthermore, if you want to talk about a long term increase in global temperature caused by humans, then check this out:
-According to the IPCC, over the last 160,000 years there has been a direct correlation between the earths temperature and CO2 levels. As CO2 levels go up, the earths temperature goes up at the same rate, and as CO2 levels go down, the temperature goes down at the same rate. There are virtually no exceptions to this correlation from 160,000 years BPD (before present day) to about 10,000 years BPD. Now as anybody reading this should know from history, the human population has expanded exponentially in the last 10,000 years, and especially in the last 200 years, when we started the 19th century with about a billion people and now have 6.5 billion today. During the last 10,000 years, we have harvested the earth endlessly, using it to our advantage. We have industrialized and agriculturilized previously green lands, created all sorts of toxic gases, have settled across the entire planet, and breathed billions of tons of C02 into the air every year. We have also breeded numerous cows and sheep and chickens and other farm animals, all of whom spew tons and tons of methane into the air every year. Planet Earth had never dealt with this kind of force before from any species, and environmentalists/eco-terrorists have gone nuclear over it. Their views are aptly summed up by Agent Smith from the Matrix:
"When I tried to classify your species, I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague."
Well guess what: despite the fact that we humans have 'savaged the planet' over the last 10,000 years and spewed our own man made CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the global temperature has gone DOWN from 1 degrees celcius 10,000 years ago to a hair over 0 degrees celcius today, even though CO2 levels have sharply RISEN from 250 PPM's to 370 PPM's! By the IPCC's own data, there IS no 'overall trend' of 'man made' global warming! There's not even an 'overall trend' of global warming! The eco-terrorists were LYING about man made global cooling in the 70's and are LYING about man made global warming today! 'Climate change' (a fallacious tautology if there ever was one) was natural back then, and its natural today.
FACT: We humans do NOT cause climate change
FACT: We humans only emit about 14.8% of CO2, and that's by the very liberal estimates of the U.S Department of Energy. The real number is about 3%, and is probably as low as 3/10 of 1%. This all means that if CO2 emissions are indeed enhancing the greenhouse effect and leading to an increase in temperature, then we humans are NOT responsible for it. And to emphasize a point I made earlier, humans cannot possibly cause the global warming of the last 150 years when there is a flat increase in temperature vs. an extremely sharp increase in carbon emissions and when humans only account for 3/10 of 1% of total CO2 emitted. There is no rapid increase. Look at the IPCC charts. The increase in temperature in the last 50 years is hardly an increase at all. Here are my sources:
-On the fact that the earth has cooled by 1 degrees Celsius in the last 8000 years: The data comes from the Vostok and Siple Ice Cores. The chart measures increases and decreases in CO2 concentration vs. increases and decreases in global temperature over the last 160 thousand years. The chart clearly shows a decrease in global temperature from 1 degrees Celsius to a hair over 0 degrees Celsius over the last 8000 years
-On the fact that the earths temperature has only increased by less then half a degree celsius in the last 200 years despite the large influx of CO2 from carbon emissions: according to another IPCC chart from the Siple Ice Core, carbon emissions have sharply increased from less then 1 billion metric tons in 1850 to almost 7 billion metric tons today, and yet global temperature in that time has flatly increased from -0.4 degrees celcius in 1850 to 0.3 today
"Journal Claims EPA Has 'Self-Assigned' Its Power To Regulate Greenhouse Gases"
In a sense, that's exactly what the EPA has admitted to doing. Per Lisa Jackson:
"After EPA staff conducted a comprehensive survey of the soundest available science and carefully reviewed hundreds of thousands of public comments, I determined last December that greenhouse-gas emissions do endanger Americans' health and welfare."
But even if you dismiss that as Jackson just "following orders," consider this: the Clean Air Act was never intended to regulate carbon dioxide. As the Clean Air Act is currently written, the endangerment finding would require that the EPA regulate sources or establishments that emit 100 or 250 tons or more of a pollutant per year. This was seen as the best way to combat smog, soot, and other air pollutants–not CO2. This means that schools, farms, restaurants, hospitals, apartment complexes, churches, and anything with a motor—from motor vehicles to lawnmowers, jet skis, and leaf blowers—could be subject to cost-increasing restrictions.
The regulations would have the same impact on the economy and employment as would a major new energy tax as passed through cap and trade, but they would be worse, since they would entail more burdensome compliance, administrative, and legal costs. The American Farm Bureau Federation and 48 other agricultural groups sent a letter to the Senate warning that "full implementation would cost farmers more than 866-million dollars just for obtaining permits for farms and livestock operations."
This is not an attack on just big business or big agriculture. The regulations could apply to "dairy facilities with over 25 cows, beef cattle operations of over 50 cattle, swine operations with over 200 hogs, and farms with over 500 acres of corn." Further, over 1.3 million commercial entities could be regulated for the first time and over 3.9 million single family homes could be subject to regulation–and these numbers are according to the EPA itself (!)
The EPA is trying to minimize the economic pain, just temporarily, for smaller entities by raising the pollution thresholds in the Clean Air Act. Known as the tailoring rule, the change not only stands on shaky constitutional ground, it also stands on shaky legal ground–floods of lawsuits are likely to come from eco-terrorist groups that believe the EPA should regulate anything and everything.
The tailoring rule would only be in place until 2016 and then the millions of smaller entities become fair game again. The American energy consumer will have no such luck. Small businesses, farms, churches, schools and homes will immediately be hit with higher energy prices passed on by the larger energy industries that will be regulated. And as former senator and governor of Virginia George Allen and the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Marlo Lewis explain, even with the tailoring rule in place the EPA can inflict massive amounts of economic pain:
"The tailoring rule also provides no protection from the endangerment finding’s most absurd result–rulemakings to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), set below current atmospheric concentrations, for greenhouse gases. Environmental litigation groups are only acting on the obvious implication of the EPA’s assertion that the root cause of endangerment is the 'elevated concentration' of greenhouse gases when they demand that the EPA initiate such rulemakings.
The economic consequences would be devastating. Even a global depression lasting several decades would not be enough to lower CO2 concentrations from today’s level–roughly 390 parts per million–to 350 ppm, the new politically correct 'stabilization' target advocated by Al Gore, the Center for Biological Diversity and numerous other environmental groups. Yet under the Clean Air Act, states are obligated to attain NAAQS within five years or, at most, 10 years. The endangerment finding thus sets the stage for (eco-terrorists) to transform the Act into a deindustrialization mandate via litigation. The Murkowski resolution would nip all this mischief in the bud."
To add salt to the wound, these regulations are all based on a faulty scientific consensus that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are a significant threat to human health and the environment. It’s time for the Senate to act and prevent the EPA from slipping global warming regulations through the backdoor, especially when the public doesn’t want to see them brought in through the front.
"Bush EPA Administrator: Supreme Court Case, Climate Science 'Require The Agency To Propose A Positive Endangerment Finding' On Greenhouse Gases."
FALSE. As explained above, global warming is a left wing myth that does not need to be addressed and could not be addressed even if it WAS real! Furthermore, global warming will not have ANY negative effect on the U.S economy for the next 90 years, and that's assuming it has any negative effect at all.
FACT: there is no need to regulate emissions that do not cause global warming and don't do much harm to the environment.
"EPA: Endangerment Finding 'Obligates The Agency' To 'Issue Greenhouse-Gas Emissions Standards For Motor Vehicles.'"
But in addition to the fact that emissions standards for vehicles have been a catastrophic economic failure, these new regulations on CO2 will undoubtedly be the most expensive and expansive environmental regulation in history—with no environmental benefit to show for it.
Like cap and trade, regulating CO2 emissions under the CAA would similarly burden the economy with higher energy costs, but doing so in a top-down regulatory fashion would also include higher administrative compliance costs for businesses, higher bureaucratic costs for enforcing the regulations, and higher legal costs from the inevitable litigation.
Air quality is undoubtedly important; who isn’t for clean air? But the means to the end is important as well, and we should pursue policies that allow improvements to occur organically rather than implement policies that prohibit innovation and place higher costs on American families. Indeed, the free market has proven perfectly capable of providing a clean environment for the American people. Congress should rein in the EPA’s regulatory authority by amending the CAA to exclude CO2 and other GHGs from coming under the EPA’s purview
"Journal Falsely Suggests EPA Regulations Are An Attempt To Impose Climate Measures Rejected By Congress"
But that's exactly what these regulations are: a form of cap-and-trade, which the American people didn’t want and Congress couldn’t pass. Alas, that didn't stop the EPA from issuing these regulations.
Despite Congress’s inability to pass cap-and-trade legislation that would have increased energy prices dramatically, the EPA is moving forward with its own regulations on greenhouse gas emissions, most notably carbon dioxide. The EPA will start regulating emissions from new power plants and major expansions of large greenhouse gas emitters and will set the schedule for the next two years:
"By midyear 2012, refineries and fossil-fuel-fired electric utilities will be required to begin lowering their greenhouse gas emissions under a recent court settlement reached by the Environmental Protection Agency and several states and environmental groups. Refineries and power plants are responsible for 40% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, EPA said when making the announcement on Dec. 23.
Under the settlement, EPA will use Clean Air Act regulations to propose emissions standards for power plants in July 2011 and for refineries in December 2011 and to issue final regulations in May and November 2012, respectively.
EPA has not determined what the standards will be, however, and the agency said the lengthy schedule allows it to host several “listening sessions” with businesses, states, and other stakeholders early in 2011 as it draws up actual regulations."
The new chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee-Republican Fred Upton-is making EPA regulations a priority. On January 2nd, he told Fox News:
"We are not going to let this Administration regulate what they’ve been unable to legislate."
Congress could do this by amending the Clean Air Act to exclude CO2 and other greenhouse gases from coming under the EPA’s purview. Defunding the EPA in a spending bill or using the Congressional Review Act could also prevent the EPA from regulating CO2. Several states and businesses have already filed lawsuits challenging the regulation’s constitutionality and urging that the EPA’s procedures violate existing statutory language.
The uncertainty of what will come of all this is making it difficult for large industrial projects to move forward. Jeffrey Holmstead, a President Bush-era EPA official, emphasized:
"It slows everybody down because nobody knows what the rules are going to be."
And it’s not just the EPA regulating CO2. Eco-terrorist groups can challenge new projects, and other EPA rules make it nearly impossible to break ground for new projects. "That is a huge part of the problem," says Holmstead. "There are multiple opportunities for it to be challenged and held up."
Although the EPA is targeting the heavy emitters first, the burden of the EPA regulations will be paid for by every American. Regulating CO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act would burden the economy with higher energy costs, higher administrative compliance costs for businesses, and higher bureaucratic costs for enforcing the regulations. Reining in the EPA’s authority is long overdue and should be a top priority for our 112th Congress.
"Journal Accuses EPA Of Favoring A 'Conception Of An Autonomous Regulatory State'"
The EPA can talk all they want about desiring Congressional support, but their actions speak louder than their words. The EPA is a genocidal group of monsters that, among its much more "mild" actions, has deliberately stalled 351 U.S. energy projects that could create as many as 1.9 million jobs and increase the nation’s gross domestic product by $1.1 trillion. Any bureaucracy that has the power to kill that many people and destroy that many jobs & wealth undoubtedly favors an autonomous regulatory state.