EPA says greenhouse gases endanger human health

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
The Environmental Protection Agency took a major step Monday toward regulating greenhouses gases, concluding that climate changing pollution threatens the public health and the environment.

so-called endangerment finding is needed before the EPA can regulate carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases released from automobiles, power plants, and factories under the federal Clean Air Act.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/12/07/national/w070753S19.DTL

I guess growing food threatens public safety as I am pretty sure that photosynthesis requires carbon dioxide. I guess cellular respiration also threatens public safety....
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Cough, cough. Hack, hack. Brrr. It is cold here in DC and I hear in Sacramento, California as well!

The head of the EPA is well known as an idiot and a political hack from before Corzine appointed her to head up the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Just saying what a lot of career bureaucrats are saying here in DC.

If Congress is waffling on climate legislation, the executive branch is going to run with it anyway. There is an awful lot of power to be gained by controlling activities that throw off CO2.

Guess what? That ever so ornery Texas is Target Number One. This will go over well there.
 
Last edited:

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
And evidently the EPA can thus enforce laws about CO2 WITHOUT having to go through Congress first.

Considering people emit about a kilo of CO2 each day, you are all risks to longevity and thus must be expunged. Each of you reading this is an eco-catastrophe, just on a small scale.
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
And evidently the EPA can thus enforce laws about CO2 WITHOUT having to go through Congress first.

Considering people emit about a kilo of CO2 each day, you are all risks to longevity and thus must be expunged. Each of you reading this is an eco-catastrophe, just on a small scale.

Yup. A group of unelected bureaucrats now get to shape society in their image. Isn't the circumvention of the constitution an amazing thing?

The legacy of FDR has done wonders for this country.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,039
48,032
136
Yup. A group of unelected bureaucrats now get to shape society in their image. Isn't the circumvention of the constitution an amazing thing?

The legacy of FDR has done wonders for this country.

Please do explain how this is a circumvention of the Constitution. I'm very excited to see your thoughts.
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
Please do explain how this is a circumvention of the Constitution. I'm very excited to see your thoughts.

Please explain how me growing marijuana in my back yard and smoking it myself constitutes "interstate commerce"? Please explain how growing corn on my own farm not for distribution but for feeding my own cattle constitutes an act of interstate commerce?

You can't.

Where exactly does the constitution grant the federal government the authority to regulate CO2 emissions? It doesn't. All of these rulings stem from the idea that the federal government can regulate all things connected to interstate commerce not the direct act - as was the original intent of the framers.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,039
48,032
136
Please explain how me growing marijuana in my back yard and smoking it myself constitutes "interstate commerce"? Please explain how growing corn on my own farm not for distribution but for feeding my own cattle constitutes an act of interstate commerce?

You can't.

Where exactly does the constitution grant the federal government the authority to regulate CO2 emissions? It doesn't. All of these rulings stem from the idea that the federal government can regulate all things connected to interstate commerce not the direct act - as was the original intent of the framers.

Well the US Supreme Court disagrees with you. Maybe you should write them a letter telling them this, because I'm certain they have never considered this before.
 

zmatt

Member
Nov 5, 2009
152
0
0
Well the US Supreme Court disagrees with you. Maybe you should write them a letter telling them this, because I'm certain they have never considered this before.

The one place where the constitution is consistently disregarded. You can thank John Marshall for that. he practically invented legislating form the bench. Before we came along the courts wer emeant to settle disputes, not to create policy. It is very much America's fault for that. And it is a major injustice. Giving one person ( a judge) the power to create policy is very very stupid.
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
Well the US Supreme Court disagrees with you. Maybe you should write them a letter telling them this, because I'm certain they have never considered this before.

Why do you think they had to pass a constitutional amendment to ban slavery? Why do you think they had to pass a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol?

Using the current thinking they could just pass a law.

FDR threatened to stack the court to get what he wanted when all of his "new deal" laws were being struck down left and right. The consequences of such threat is what America is stuck with today.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,039
48,032
136
The one place where the constitution is consistently disregarded. You can thank John Marshall for that. he practically invented legislating form the bench. Before we came along the courts wer emeant to settle disputes, not to create policy. It is very much America's fault for that. And it is a major injustice. Giving one person ( a judge) the power to create policy is very very stupid.

If you have a problem with Marbury v. Madison you're about 200 years too late. Judicial review is an excellent idea and the nation that has arisen under it is the greatest the world has ever seen. I'm pretty okay with that.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
The one place where the constitution is consistently disregarded. You can thank John Marshall for that. he practically invented legislating form the bench. Before we came along the courts wer emeant to settle disputes, not to create policy. It is very much America's fault for that. And it is a major injustice. Giving one person ( a judge) the power to create policy is very very stupid.

guess which part of the anglo-english legal system gave us property rights?



the Court practically ignores the word "interstate" in front of commerce. the only things i can think of that are commerce and aren't "interstate" are networks that require significant changes to cross state lines (being ERCOT and some railroads). of course, for a while there it looked like they were going to ignore the word "commerce" in interstate commerce as long as congress said that its regulation had some economic impact somewhere down the line.
 
Last edited:
Dec 30, 2004
12,554
2
76
Why do you think they had to pass a constitutional amendment to ban slavery? Why do you think they had to pass a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol?

Using the current thinking they could just pass a law.

FDR threatened to stack the court to get what he wanted when all of his "new deal" laws were being struck down left and right. The consequences of such threat is what America is stuck with today.

That is a good point.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,039
48,032
136
Why do you think they had to pass a constitutional amendment to ban slavery? Why do you think they had to pass a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol?

Using the current thinking they could just pass a law.

FDR threatened to stack the court to get what he wanted when all of his "new deal" laws were being struck down left and right. The consequences of such threat is what America is stuck with today.

They didn't have to pass a constitutional amendment to ban slavery, they did so in order to make it almost impossible to reverse. The USSC has never addressed the limited issue of whether a constitutional amendment would be required for drugs in the same way that it was passed for alcohol.

FDR's effort was crushed in the senate, so no... it's not.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Well the US Supreme Court disagrees with you. Maybe you should write them a letter telling them this, because I'm certain they have never considered this before.

You know what? Reasonableness begets respect. The current placeholders in the federal government are taking an awful gamble with this one, as well as with health insurance reform, as well as lots of initiatives which we don't spend much time on here.

There is a serious consequence to overreaching and abuse of power. Especially when no one but the bureaucracy gains.

This overreach is going to be challenged on the merits. Most likely to the Supreme Court as that is where the Obama Administration is hoping their initiatives will be entrenched in stone. Obama may hope to get another Justice on the bench to stack the deck but right now he is facing an even hand, and those are not the best of odds.

Now that the EPA is showing their scientific justification, I would say the game has already been played and the Democrat government has just busted.

All those dollars that have come from the business community to elect Democrats are now gone. The Obama drew a big red bulls-eye on so many industries that only the Al Gore subsidiaries will be standing with the Democrats next year being that the bail out companies won't make up the difference for fear of landing in more of a legal mess. And the little people facing economic ruin are not going to be standing for the Democrats either being that they are standing in unemployment lines foisted on them by the attacks on industry.

2010 will be a sad, sad year for Democrats. But they will have only themselves to blame.
 
Last edited:

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
This overreach is going to be challenged on the merits. Most likely to the Supreme Court as that is where the Obama Administration is hoping their initiatives will be entrenched in stone. Obama may hope to get another Justice on the bench to stack the deck but right now he is facing an even hand, and those are not the best of odds.

i'm pretty sure the courts have already said the EPA has the responsibility to regulate CO2 as a pollutant under the clean air act.
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
They didn't have to pass a constitutional amendment to ban slavery, they did so in order to make it almost impossible to reverse. The USSC has never addressed the limited issue of whether a constitutional amendment would be required for drugs in the same way that it was passed for alcohol.

FDR's effort was crushed in the senate, so no... it's not.

Pick up a history book please
(Wikipedia doesn't count)
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
Since CO2 is dangerous to humans, and humans cause CO2...

And with "progressives" also believing population controls will be necessary...

Put them together and watch the hilarity ensue!
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
i'm pretty sure the courts have already said the EPA has the responsibility to regulate CO2 as a pollutant under the clean air act.

They were charged to make a scientific determination. The EPA finding is not necessarily that it is the current level of CO2 that is an endangerment but the rate of rise when combined with the increased presence of other green house gases.

This is also one of the bases for challenge - if the science is faulty or if the extrapolated damage is shown to be an overreach, the regulatory regime (that has not been published yet) will be modified or reversed. First there has to be a challenge raised by damaged or affected parties. Look for this as soon as the regs are promulgated, if not before on other grounds.

The EPA is relying very, very heavily on the reports of the IPCC and CCSP. The very entities whose work is being challenged for lack of integrity and which we are discussing in other threads. You can see the infamous "hockeystick" on page 51 of the Technical Support document I linked below.

Should be fun for the EPA to defend this as more malfeasance is coming out of the groups they relied on for the technical backing of this finding.

http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html

Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act

Action

On December 7, 2009, the Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act:

* Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases--carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)--in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.

* Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and welfare.

These findings do not themselves impose any requirements on industry or other entities. However, this action is a prerequisite to finalizing the EPA’s proposed greenhouse gas emission standards for light-duty vehicles, which were jointly proposed by EPA and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Safety Administration on September 15, 2009.

Background

On April 2, 2007, in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), the Supreme Court found that greenhouse gases are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act. The Court held that the Administrator must determine whether or not emissions of greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision. In making these decisions, the Administrator is required to follow the language of section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court decision resulted from a petition for rulemaking under section 202(a) filed by more than a dozen environmental, renewable energy, and other organizations.

On April 17, 2009, the Administrator signed proposed endangerment and cause or contribute findings for greenhouse gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. EPA held a 60-day public comment period, which ended June 23, 2009, and received over 380,000 public comments. These included both written comments as well as testimony at two public hearings in Arlington, Virginia and Seattle, Washington. EPA carefully reviewed, considered, and incorporated public comments and has now issued these final Findings.

Findings

These findings were signed by the Administrator on December 7, 2009, and will be published in the Federal Register (www.regulations.gov) under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171. A pre-publication version of these findings is below.

* Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act (284 pp., 377 KB, About PDF)

http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/FinalFindings.pdf

Technical analyses developed in support of the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act may be found here:

* Technical Support Document for the Findings (210 pp., 2.5 MB, About PDF)

http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/Endangerment%20TSD.pdf

Response to Comments (coming soon!)

EPA’s response to public comments received on the Proposed Findings and accompanying Technical Support Document may be found here:

* Volume 1: General Approach to the Science and Other Technical Issues (PDF)
* Volume 2: Validity of Observed and Measured Data (PDF)
* Volume 3: Attribution of Observed Climate Change (PDF)
* Volume 4: Validity of Future Projections (PDF)
* Volume 5: Human Health and Air Quality (PDF)
* Volume 6: Agriculture and Forestry (PDF)
* Volume 7: Water Resources, Coastal Areas, Ecosystems and Wildlife (PDF)
* Volume 8: Other Sectors (PDF)
* Volume 9: Endangerment Finding (PDF)
* Volume 10: Cause or Contribute Finding (PDF)
* Volume 11: Miscellaneous Legal, Procedural, and Other Comments (PDF)
 
Last edited:

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
The EPA was NOT created by congress rather an executive order. The head of the EPA is appointed by the president.

This is nothing more than the executive branch trying to circumvent the legislative branch of the government.

Obama knows he cannot get Cap & Tax passed and found a way around congress.
 
Last edited:

0marTheZealot

Golden Member
Apr 5, 2004
1,692
0
0
When the EPA said that second hand smoke was deadly, it opened the door up for all sorts of garbage studies. The SHS studies have consistently been shown to be fatally flawed, only a loophole allows the EPA to continue to regulate SHS as a "deadly" gas. In reality, exposure to SHS is no more dangerous than the extra radiation you encounter on a trans-continental flight, due to the atmosphere being thinner. The EPA went into the study with the conclusion already decided, cherry picked their data and then doubled the confidence interval to justify their pre-founded conclusions. It was a travesty of science.

I'm all for climate change regulation, but this is the wrong way to do it.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,378
5,123
136
You know what? Reasonableness begets respect. The current placeholders in the federal government are taking an awful gamble with this one, as well as with health insurance reform, as well as lots of initiatives which we don't spend much time on here.

There is a serious consequence to overreaching and abuse of power. Especially when no one but the bureaucracy gains.

This overreach is going to be challenged on the merits. Most likely to the Supreme Court as that is where the Obama Administration is hoping their initiatives will be entrenched in stone. Obama may hope to get another Justice on the bench to stack the deck but right now he is facing an even hand, and those are not the best of odds.

Now that the EPA is showing their scientific justification, I would say the game has already been played and the Democrat government has just busted.

All those dollars that have come from the business community to elect Democrats are now gone. The Obama drew a big red bulls-eye on so many industries that only the Al Gore subsidiaries will be standing with the Democrats next year being that the bail out companies won't make up the difference for fear of landing in more of a legal mess. And the little people facing economic ruin are not going to be standing for the Democrats either being that they are standing in unemployment lines foisted on them by the attacks on industry.

2010 will be a sad, sad year for Democrats. But they will have only themselves to blame.

I would love to be able to agree with you, that outcome would make the misery worthwhile, but it isn't going to happen.
When anything that produces carbon is under federal control, everything is under federal control. There is no aspect of our lives that won't be affected. For those that want big government, climate change is the holy grail. It's control, it's the ability to steer the economy in any direction they so choose, and it's what about half the voters seem to want.
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
I would love to be able to agree with you, that outcome would make the misery worthwhile, but it isn't going to happen.
When anything that produces carbon is under federal control, everything is under federal control. There is no aspect of our lives that won't be affected. For those that want big government, climate change is the holy grail. It's control, it's the ability to steer the economy in any direction they so choose, and it's what about half the voters seem to want.

Its sad how
[The Congress shall have power] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
somehow means anything other than the the physical act of commerce between 2 states as originally intended (I.E. state couldn't tax goods from state B but not tax goods from state C).

Thank you FRD....I want my lawn darts back!!!

....

This should actually trouble people of both political affiliations. Maybe the chemicals used in abortions will be ruled "hazardous" by the EPA under a different president and regulated by the president (not congress) and essentially ban abortion. This type of power grab by the executive branch is a (very) slippery slope.
 
Last edited: