Corvette Forum : DigitalCorvettes.com Corvette Forums banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
By Alan Caruba

It seems almost beyond reason that a single U.S. agency could so hate America that it was prepared to ignore the Constitution, distort a Supreme Court decision, and impose its will on the nation in the name of totally discredited science.

That, however, is what the Environmental Protection Agency is seeking to do while Americans are distracted by the Christmas celebrations.

The agency’s objective is to regulate so-called greenhouse gases (GHG) on January 2, 2011. More specifically, it would regulate emissions from power plants and other large emitters, but in reality it would end the role of coal as the provider of 50% of the electricity Americans require.

It is essential to understand that the primary GHG is carbon dioxide (CO2) and it was this gas, naturally produced by the Earth and vital to all vegetation and life on Earth, that was falsely identified as the “cause” of “global warming.” Humans individually exhale some six pounds of CO2 every day.

First, there was no “global warming”; only the normal and natural warming that had been in effect since around 1850 when a 500-year “little ice age” ended in the northern hemisphere.

Second, the Earth is now in a normal and natural cooling cycle, though with the added concern that it is also at the end of an 11,500 year interglacial cycle between the last major ice age and the next.

Third, the data put forth by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been almost entirely discredited, based as it was on rigged research by corrupted university centers and governmental agencies. Some people need to go to jail, but it is unlikely because the fraud was so vast in its extent.

On November 22nd, The Wall Street Journal published a lengthy editorial, “The EPA Permitorium” noting that “The scale of the EPA’s current assault is unprecedented, yet it has received almost no public scrutiny. Since Mr. Obama took office, the agency has proposed or finalized 29 major regulations and 172 major policy rules.”

It can be said that, in terms of its original mission, cleaning the nation’s air and water, that the EPA succeeded, but like any government agency, the EPA has also sought to constantly expand its powers and has, from its beginning, also seen as part of its mission the restriction of virtually all chemicals—invariably called toxic—with a particular emphasis on pesticides that protect human health and property.

Too much exposure to any chemical is inherently toxic. The proper use of any chemical is beneficial.

The reason there is a nationwide infestation of bed bugs after a half century or more in which this insect had been virtually eliminated is that the EPA has restricted the use of almost every pesticide that might exterminate bed bugs. Now multiply that against EPA restrictions on a host of chemicals vital to the manufacture of thousands of products.

The effort of the EPA to regulate CO2 and other GHG gases has no basis in science and none in law. The Clean Air Act does not authorize it.

Moreover, by its own admission, restricting GHGs would only reduce global temperatures—if that were even possible—by 15 ten-thousandths of a degree Celsius in the next century.

The EPA has also proposed new rules calling for a reduction in the national ambient air-quality standard for ground-level ozone, a precursor of smog, from 75 parts per billion to between 60 and 70 parts per billion, a cut of up to 20%.

To most people that means nothing, but the reality is that hundreds of U.S. cities and counties don’t meet the current standard and compliance would destroy what is left of an ailing U.S. economy. If you think unemployment is bad now, it would increase as so-called “emitters” of GHG either undertook costly measures to reduce their emissions or just closed their doors.

Along with those who tried to impose a Cap-and-Trade Act on the nation in order to limit so-called GHGs and profit from it by creating a bogus exchange for the sale of “carbon credits”, the EPA is seeking to exercise a totalitarian control over every aspect of the provision and use of energy in America and it is all based on lies.

Congress can put an end to this nightmare by overturning the EPA’s “Endangerment Rule” and with it the GHG regulations. A new Congress can and should defund as much of the EPA as possible.

The use of fossil fuels---coal, oil, and natural gas---accounts for 85% of America’s energy sources. The EPA proposes to limit or end their use. As such it is an enemy of the people and Congress must act to stop this insane agency before it destroys the nation

http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2010/12/epa-versus-usa.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,410 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,409 Posts
Good read. There is also global warming on Mars. How does Al Gore explain that? :crazy:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
The EPA particularly has their boot on the throat of Texas. Apparently if you vote red and are good at creating jobs, something must be done to stop you in the Obamanation.
 

·
I have an Acer now.
Joined
·
4,591 Posts
Good read. There is also global warming on Mars. How does Al Gore explain that? :crazy:

I was reading that it would be useful to increase greenhouse gasses on mars because it will increase the temperature to a level living things can survive in and block out the deadly amounts of radiation that pass though the current martian atmosphere.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Why could there be no life on Mars in the cold ? We have seen recently... that life can spring up in places not believed to be possible... mere weeks ago.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
The EPA particularly has their boot on the throat of Texas. Apparently if you vote red and are good at creating jobs, something must be done to stop you in the Obamanation.
Yeah... you think your screwed... this passed in CA.

Description

The law requires that by 2020 the state's greenhouse gas emissions be reduced to 1990 levels, a roughly 25% reduction under business as usual estimates. The California Air Resources Board, under the California Environmental Protection Agency, is to prepare plans to achieve the objectives stated in the Act.

As defined in the bill, “greenhouse gases” include all of the following gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These are the same gases listed as Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) in the Kyoto Protocol.
[edit] History of the Bill

On June 26, 2006, the California Senate Environmental Quality Committee approved AB32[2] with a vote of 4-2. The bill, authored by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez (D-Los Angeles) and Assembly Member Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills), was agreed between Schwarzenegger and Democratic legislators on August 30, 2006. On September 27, the Governor signed it into law.

The economic effect of AB32 remains controversial. In March 2010, almost four years after its passage, the California Air Resources Board ("CARB") issued a report claiming that the law would create about 10,000 new jobs for California in the next ten years.[3] A parallel study, performed by consulting firm Charles River Associates for CARB pursuant to a 2008 state law and released at the same time using the same raw data, claimed that the program would cost between $28 and $97 billion dollars over the same decade and would cause a decline in California household income in the range of 0.6% to 1.0% per capita.[4]

The bill was challenged by Proposition 23 on the November 2010 ballot, which aimed to suspend AB 32 until state unemployment stayed below 5.5% for four consecutive quarters. The proposition was defeated by a wide margin.

How screwed are we ?
 

·
DC Crew
Joined
·
2,988 Posts
:buhbye:fossil power, hello new construction for nuclear power :cheers:
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top