Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   EPA to issue an endangerment finding on Greenhouse Gases, allowing their regulation by the Federal Government under the Clean Air Act   (greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com) divider line 456
    More: Interesting, Clean Air Act, EPA, greenhouse gases, coal-fired power plants, carbon dioxide emissions, endangerment finding, green businesses, federal government  
•       •       •

4702 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Dec 2009 at 11:33 AM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



456 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-12-07 11:48:41 AM  
SlothB77: An EPA endangerment finding "could result in a top-down command-and-control regime that will choke off growth by adding new mandates to virtually every major construction and renovation project," U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue said in a statement.

Because if ever there was a time when we could afford to CHOKE OFF GROWTH, now is it! It can get worse out there folks. Much, much worse. And it will.


1) A main goal of the Clean Air Act is technology forcing. Technology forcing forces old business models to actually change, and ultimately will create jobs. In the competitive market, the company that changes first and most efficiently will come out on top.

2) The Federal Government can only set the standard that must be achieved. The States are responsible for coming up with their own method to be in compliance with that standard and by law, the method of one state cannot be imposed on another state unless that state takes no action.

3) Economic considerations are not permitted in setting the standards, which is part of the technology forcing.
 
2009-12-07 11:49:35 AM  
Dear Earth-worshippers, environmentalists, capitalism-haters, people who paint their kids faces with trees and polar bears, the children of said people:

please, just die. Fark off and die. I'm going to switch all my lights on, run all the heaters and open my windows. Fark you all with your bullshiat alarmist preachy crap.
 
2009-12-07 11:49:52 AM  
Barbigazi: Mordant: Barbigazi: fiver5: Given that this pretty much means the end of the US economy, I would say that this is news flash worthy

So how long do you figure we have until we're fighting over cans of cat food?

That was already going on back on January 22nd, by Christmas (if the holiday is still even legal to celebrate) we'll be tearing open those ancient fruitcakes from past holidays that we never would have even considered eating.

America is doomed, doomed I tell you.

I've been preparing ever since they outlawed ammunition last spring. I have a stockpile of boards with nails in them.


BAH! I've been doing that for years under the guise of "fixing stuff" in my house. I have so many hobnails pretty soon I'll be considered my own militia.
 
2009-12-07 11:49:57 AM  
Just think guys, we can use the savings from all that cheap oil we were going to get from the Iraqi war to go towards the price increases that we'll see from imposing carbon restrictions.
 
2009-12-07 11:50:03 AM  
In related news, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson will soon be thrown under the bus after the fallout from this debacle sinks in resigning to spend time with her family
 
2009-12-07 11:50:42 AM  
Mordant: thomps: enforcerpsu: I hope all you global warming fear mongers are ready to pay more for everything you buy.

I hope you are ready to see the rail industry grind to a halt.

I hope your ready to reap what you sow.

really? considering that it takes infinitely less energy to haul cargo by train rather than long-haul truck, i'd think that the rail industry would be a winner with increased EPA regulation.

What cargo ? Most companies will be shutting down as a result of the additional costs and soon there won't be any products to haul. The only use for rail in the foreseeable future is the trains that will be used to haul conservatives to the FEMA camps.


The rail industry is directly affected by cargo. Less cargo to haul, less people have jobs...everywhere.

Thats ok though, gross and overbearing regulations are GOOD FOR YOU.
 
2009-12-07 11:51:06 AM  
Brostorm: Circumventing Congress Entirely?

This cant end well.


Congress authorizes the EPA via statute. If this is within their authorization statute, which a Federal Court will surely be asked to determine, then Congress is not circumvented ... and Congress always has the power to revoke an agency's authority.

So ... the more you know, I guess.
 
2009-12-07 11:51:06 AM  
Brostorm: Circumventing Congress Entirely?

This cant end well.


There is no circumvention. The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to re-evaluate the criteria pollutant periodically. The Administrator must undertake a study to determine whether or not there is a significant hazard to public health. You don't want congress to determine that with votes to determine whether or not to vote on whether to vote
 
2009-12-07 11:51:36 AM  
doublesecretprobation: and 150 years ago you would have been saying the same thing about child labor laws.

child labor law changes 150 years ago were based on a false premise and falsified data?
 
2009-12-07 11:51:57 AM  
enforcerpsu: thomps: enforcerpsu: I hope all you global warming fear mongers are ready to pay more for everything you buy.

I hope you are ready to see the rail industry grind to a halt.

I hope your ready to reap what you sow.

really? considering that it takes infinitely less energy to haul cargo by train rather than long-haul truck, i'd think that the rail industry would be a winner with increased EPA regulation.

1. I work for the rail industry.
2. This does nothing for us.
3. This makes it even harder to power the locomotive, you can only get so much efficiency out of a diesel electric motor until batteries get better. That technology is years off, not to mention all the units without the newest engines. All 5000 of them.
4. We already produce very efficient and clean units. These regulations are nothing than uneeded gov't overhead.


But go ahead, you're a farker. You obviously know more about this than I do.


if you already produce very efficient and clean units, then presumably any increase would be much less than the increased cost of long-haul trucking (which is relatively inefficient and dirty). therefore any shift should be relatively positive for the rail industry. iirc that was one of the main reasons buffett made such a substantial investment in the industry recently.
 
2009-12-07 11:51:59 AM  
hipsellipsis: Dear Earth-worshippers, environmentalists, capitalism-haters, people who paint their kids faces with trees and polar bears, the children of said people:

please, just die. Fark off and die. I'm going to switch all my lights on, run all the heaters and open my windows. Fark you all with your bullshiat alarmist preachy crap.


And what do you teach your kids? To pollute? To waste? To be greedy and materialistic?
 
2009-12-07 11:52:09 AM  
FTFA: The Obama administration has signaled its intent to issue a so-called endangerment finding for carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases since taking office in January. Ms. Jackson announced a proposed finding in April and has taken steps to implement the rules that would be needed to back it up.

This reads like bad science. Here is our proposed outcome, please go verify it.
 
2009-12-07 11:52:25 AM  
Obviously, this is the perfect time for Obama and the EPA to hamstring business even further! Our economy was too strong to begin with...
 
2009-12-07 11:52:26 AM  
This will work out just fine. We'll just divest ourselves of our remaining manufacturing base, and focus on our core competency: buying things from China on credit and making money selling them to each other.
 
2009-12-07 11:52:38 AM  
hipsellipsis: Dear Earth-worshippers, environmentalists, capitalism-haters, people who paint their kids faces with trees and polar bears, the children of said people:

please, just die. Fark off and die. I'm going to switch all my lights on, run all the heaters and open my windows. Fark you all with your bullshiat alarmist preachy crap.


hey, go for it buddy. if you're doomsday scenario of energy costs going through the roof comes true, you'll be the first to go bankrupt. that'll show us!
 
2009-12-07 11:52:45 AM  
SlothB77: child labor law changes 150 years ago were based on a false premise and falsified data?

Dude, if you start using the email thing to invalidate all things related to global warming, I might just have die from laughing.
 
2009-12-07 11:52:50 AM  
WaltzingMathilda: Congress authorizes the EPA via statute. If this is within their authorization statute, which a Federal Court will surely be asked to determine, then Congress is not circumvented ... and Congress always has the power to revoke an agency's authority.

There is a case that limits the Administrator's authority, I forget its name though. But by and large, this is the textbook application of the CAA and has been a long time coming.
 
2009-12-07 11:52:58 AM  
hipsellipsis: Dear Earth-worshippers, environmentalists, capitalism-haters, people who paint their kids faces with trees and polar bears, the children of said people:

please, just die. Fark off and die. I'm going to switch all my lights on, run all the heaters and open my windows. Fark you all with your bullshiat alarmist preachy crap.


A well reasoned and thought out argument.
 
2009-12-07 11:53:12 AM  
SlothB77: doublesecretprobation: and 150 years ago you would have been saying the same thing about child labor laws.

child labor law changes 150 years ago were based on a false premise and falsified data?


win
 
2009-12-07 11:53:32 AM  
I fail to see how a gas that is produced by most of the animal life on earth, and it also necessary for the survival of most plant life on earth could be considered a danger. Anything is high enough quantities can kill you. The EPA is over stepping it's bounds.
 
2009-12-07 11:53:48 AM  
soy_bomb: If there were only a naturally occurring thing that would consume CO2 and emit O2.

t3.gstatic.comt0.gstatic.comt1.gstatic.com
 
2009-12-07 11:55:36 AM  
Oliver Twisted: FTFA: The Obama administration has signaled its intent to issue a so-called endangerment finding for carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases since taking office in January. Ms. Jackson announced a proposed finding in April and has taken steps to implement the rules that would be needed to back it up.

This reads like bad science. Here is our proposed outcome, please go verify it.


This was set in motion in 2007 when the Supreme Court said^ that the EPA could regulate GHG's if there was an endangerment finding
 
2009-12-07 11:56:00 AM  
altxatu: hipsellipsis: Dear Earth-worshippers, environmentalists, capitalism-haters, people who paint their kids faces with trees and polar bears, the children of said people:

please, just die. Fark off and die. I'm going to switch all my lights on, run all the heaters and open my windows. Fark you all with your bullshiat alarmist preachy crap.

A well reasoned and thought out argument.


No, it's just blind hatred of you morons.
 
2009-12-07 11:56:21 AM  
El Chode: Well not exactly. Washington will set the standards but the states will have to figure out how to implement them. So you better hope your state isn't too corrupt...

Oh shiat.
 
2009-12-07 11:57:02 AM  
enforcerpsu: I hope all you global warming fear mongers are ready to pay more for everything you buy.

I hope you are ready to see the rail industry grind to a halt.

I hope your ready to reap what you sow.


i129.photobucket.com

/seemed appropriate
 
2009-12-07 11:57:17 AM  
Thisbymaster: Anything is high enough quantities can kill you. The EPA is over stepping it's bounds.

I feel the same way about pharmaceuticals. I mean, we all know morphine in certain doses will alleviate severe pain and won't kill me or make me an addict. Obviously a truckload of it will kill me. But why should we let those homos at the FDA tell the doctors just how much is the right amount? farking tyrannical cocks, I tell ya.
 
2009-12-07 11:57:18 AM  
thomps: enforcerpsu: thomps: enforcerpsu: I hope all you global warming fear mongers are ready to pay more for everything you buy.

I hope you are ready to see the rail industry grind to a halt.

I hope your ready to reap what you sow.

really? considering that it takes infinitely less energy to haul cargo by train rather than long-haul truck, i'd think that the rail industry would be a winner with increased EPA regulation.

1. I work for the rail industry.
2. This does nothing for us.
3. This makes it even harder to power the locomotive, you can only get so much efficiency out of a diesel electric motor until batteries get better. That technology is years off, not to mention all the units without the newest engines. All 5000 of them.
4. We already produce very efficient and clean units. These regulations are nothing than uneeded gov't overhead.


But go ahead, you're a farker. You obviously know more about this than I do.

if you already produce very efficient and clean units, then presumably any increase would be much less than the increased cost of long-haul trucking (which is relatively inefficient and dirty). therefore any shift should be relatively positive for the rail industry. iirc that was one of the main reasons buffett made such a substantial investment in the industry recently.


You fail to understand the point. The units are at the breaking point of efficiency and clean "air" they produce. 12 cylinders now instead of 16. However, there still has to be power to move and until we can "store" that power in battery tech that actually works in a freakin locomotive, its not happening.

I'm not saying trucking is better. Locomotives have obvious advantages, but you can't squeeze blood out of a rock. This will stifle locomotive production...grossly. This will cost BILLIONS of dollars in retrofits.

Guess who pays that? YOU.
 
2009-12-07 11:57:30 AM  
Thisbymaster: Anything is high enough quantities can kill you

What happens then, when you not only have all those animals, but you create mechanical animals that spew out the gas in exponentially greater quantities, and then your natural absorbing mechanisms are being depleted? It's that "high enough quantity" you're talking about.
 
2009-12-07 11:58:08 AM  
Thisbymaster: I fail to see how a gas that is produced by most of the animal life on earth, and it also necessary for the survival of most plant life on earth could be considered a danger. Anything is high enough quantities can kill you. The EPA is over stepping it's bounds.

That's kind of the point of the Clean Air Act...
 
2009-12-07 11:59:15 AM  
El Chode: 1) A main goal of the Clean Air Act is technology forcing. Technology forcing forces old business models to actually change, and ultimately will create jobs. In the competitive market, the company that changes first and most efficiently will come out on top.

by definition, if the government has to force it through legislation, it is anti-competitive. Makework through legislation does not help the economy, it takes money out of the economy. Money spent trying to meet various laws and rules is money not spent in more productive ways.
 
2009-12-07 11:59:27 AM  
Philip Francis Queeg: hipsellipsis: Dear Earth-worshippers, environmentalists, capitalism-haters, people who paint their kids faces with trees and polar bears, the children of said people:

please, just die. Fark off and die. I'm going to switch all my lights on, run all the heaters and open my windows. Fark you all with your bullshiat alarmist preachy crap.

No, I teach my kid to use only what he needs. But the lunacy of this strange conglomeration of the the left and the various New Age followers of the religion of Environmentalism just takes my breath away. I just find stupidity so offensive.

And what do you teach your kids? To pollute? To waste? To be greedy and materialistic?
 
2009-12-07 11:59:30 AM  
m1ke: I can't wait until we all are wearing meters that monitor our breathing so that we may be billed accordingly "to save the planet."

www.star-control.com

Yes, and when you become useless to the Democrats, we'll start throwing you into the furnace, starting with old people first!!!
 
2009-12-07 11:59:36 AM  
When will tree hugging, liberal, communist scientists realize that greenhouse gases only retain heat when it profits the richest 1% of the human population?

Stupid hippy scientists.
 
2009-12-07 11:59:42 AM  
El Chode: Thisbymaster: Anything is high enough quantities can kill you

What happens then, when you not only have all those animals, but you create mechanical animals that spew out the gas in exponentially greater quantities, and then your natural absorbing mechanisms are being depleted? It's that "high enough quantity" you're talking about.


Thats the dumbest things I've read all day. There is a lot of dumb shiat on fark too.
 
2009-12-07 12:00:09 PM  
Barbigazi: enforcerpsu: I hope all you global warming fear mongers are ready to pay more for everything you buy.

I hope you are ready to see the rail industry grind to a halt.

I hope your ready to reap what you sow.

Uh, yeah sure. I'm okay with that. We can run trains on other things besides coal you know.


U gonna electrify the 250k miles of track in the u.s. and convert the 24k diesel locomotives? Gonna need a lot of copper. What about the trucking industry?
 
2009-12-07 12:00:30 PM  
soy_bomb: If there were only a naturally occurring thing that people didn't cut down, burn, or otherwise bulldoze for mini-malls that would consume CO2 and emit O2.

FTFY
 
2009-12-07 12:00:36 PM  
hipsellipsis: altxatu: hipsellipsis: Dear Earth-worshippers, environmentalists, capitalism-haters, people who paint their kids faces with trees and polar bears, the children of said people:

please, just die. Fark off and die. I'm going to switch all my lights on, run all the heaters and open my windows. Fark you all with your bullshiat alarmist preachy crap.

A well reasoned and thought out argument.

No, it's just blind hatred of you morons.


You'll pay whatever tax and fees are implemented, so nobody cares what you think.
 
2009-12-07 12:00:53 PM  
enforcerpsu: I'm not saying trucking is better. Locomotives have obvious advantages, but you can't squeeze blood out of a rock. This will stifle locomotive production...grossly. This will cost BILLIONS of dollars in retrofits.

Right, but when more business gets thrown your way because you have an obvious fuel efficiency advantage over trucks, I'd think that this is to freight rail's advantage.

Which company, by the way? CSX? NSC? Rather not say? Not being a smartass, honestly curious.
 
2009-12-07 12:01:48 PM  
SlothB77: child labor law changes 150 years ago were based on a false premise and falsified data?

oh i get it! global warming is fake, LOLZ!

maps.grida.no
 
2009-12-07 12:02:48 PM  
Barbigazi: So how long do you figure we have until we're fighting over cans of cat food?

You mean we aren't already?? Uh oh, I owe old Ms. Wurlitzer an apology...
 
2009-12-07 12:03:05 PM  
enforcerpsu: You fail to understand the point. The units are at the breaking point of efficiency and clean "air" they produce. 12 cylinders now instead of 16. However, there still has to be power to move and until we can "store" that power in battery tech that actually works in a freakin locomotive, its not happening.

I'm not saying trucking is better. Locomotives have obvious advantages, but you can't squeeze blood out of a rock. This will stifle locomotive production...grossly. This will cost BILLIONS of dollars in retrofits.

Guess who pays that? YOU.


right, and you're missing my point: if you're already at such an advanced level of efficiency, then you shouldn't expect to be hit with massive new regulations, whereas other, less efficient industries certainly will.
 
2009-12-07 12:03:13 PM  
Thisbymaster: I fail to see how a gas that is produced by most of the animal life on earth, and it also necessary for the survival of most plant life on earth could be considered a danger. Anything is high enough quantities can kill you. The EPA is over stepping it's bounds.

Feces is produced by almost all animal life on earth, and benefits most plant life, yet I still want the EPA to limit how much fecal matter can be in my drinking water.
 
2009-12-07 12:03:16 PM  
SlothB77: by definition, if the government has to force it through legislation, it is anti-competitive. Makework through legislation does not help the economy, it takes money out of the economy. Money spent trying to meet various laws and rules is money not spent in more productive ways.

Of course in the alternative we could just try to win the race to the bottom instead. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, right?

Unmonitored capitalism will just lead to less innovation and competition as power gets consolidated and business is inclined compete to keep the status quo instead of move forward.

The status quo is not competitive at all.

enforcerpsu: Thats the dumbest things I've read all day. There is a lot of dumb shiat on fark too.

I appreciate your thoughtful and well-reasoned insight.
 
2009-12-07 12:03:35 PM  
NeauxFear: enforcerpsu: I'm not saying trucking is better. Locomotives have obvious advantages, but you can't squeeze blood out of a rock. This will stifle locomotive production...grossly. This will cost BILLIONS of dollars in retrofits.

Right, but when more business gets thrown your way because you have an obvious fuel efficiency advantage over trucks, I'd think that this is to freight rail's advantage.

Which company, by the way? CSX? NSC? Rather not say? Not being a smartass, honestly curious.


Small and Medium companies do not typically ship rail, and they won't in this case. If we are forced into retrofits, it could mean 1000s of more layoffs. I'm being completely serious.

Also, I can't tell you who I work for. Not that I would care if you know, but I've already said too much. Gotta trust me on that one.
 
2009-12-07 12:04:28 PM  
Mordant: Barbigazi: fiver5: Given that this pretty much means the end of the US economy, I would say that this is news flash worthy

So how long do you figure we have until we're fighting over cans of cat food?

That was already going on back on January 22nd, by Christmas (if the holiday is still even legal to celebrate) we'll be tearing open those ancient fruitcakes from past holidays that we never would have even considered eating.

America is doomed, doomed I tell you.


No not doomed. Just about get more expensive.
 
2009-12-07 12:04:34 PM  
SlothB77: by definition, if the government has to force it through legislation, it is anti-competitive.

Uh, no.

rlv.zcache.com
 
2009-12-07 12:04:46 PM  
I cant wait until they discover that when you exhale, you generate CO2. Then they can start regulating breathing.
 
2009-12-07 12:04:49 PM  
El Chode: SlothB77: by definition, if the government has to force it through legislation, it is anti-competitive. Makework through legislation does not help the economy, it takes money out of the economy. Money spent trying to meet various laws and rules is money not spent in more productive ways.

Of course in the alternative we could just try to win the race to the bottom instead. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, right?

Unmonitored capitalism will just lead to less innovation and competition as power gets consolidated and business is inclined compete to keep the status quo instead of move forward.

The status quo is not competitive at all.

enforcerpsu: Thats the dumbest things I've read all day. There is a lot of dumb shiat on fark too.

I appreciate your thoughtful and well-reasoned insight.


Maybe I should re-word that. Nah. That covered it.

/Not trying be a smartass...really...
//however, I think there are things we do agree on
 
2009-12-07 12:05:08 PM  
Liars swearing to untruths. Farking beautiful.
 
2009-12-07 12:05:11 PM  
enforcerpsu: If we are forced into retrofits, it could mean 1000s of more layoffs. I'm being completely serious.

Very rarely are retrofits mandated, at least initially. The coal and oil lobby got it in the CAA that only new construction had to meet the standards.
 
Displayed 50 of 456 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report