EPA says greenhouse gases endanger human health

[glenn1]

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!

So why should I care what progressives do to each other? If they have their way on this, they'll start with big city liberal enclaves first anyway.

 

[shira]

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.

Excellent refutation of the science.

 

[fskimospy]

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.

The EPA was created during a reorganization and specifically blessed by the relevant congressional committees with overwhelming support. There is no 'found a way around Congress' involved in the slightest.

It's simply amazing to me how many things I see here declared unconstitutional. You guys really should let the USSC know about how many unconstitutional things we've been doing. I know you don't have law degrees or any fancy credentials like they do, but you sure seem to know an awful lot about constitutional law.

 

[zmatt]

Nowhere in the constitution does it say that congress can make an organization of unelected officials do it's job for it because congress is lazy. If you go by a strict interpretation of the constitution the US treasury is also unconstitutional. So is the national guard.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Nowhere in the constitution does it say that congress can make an organization of unelected officials do it's job for it because congress is lazy. If you go by a strict interpretation of the constitution the US treasury is also unconstitutional. So is the national guard.

Thankfully, the strict interpretation of the Constitution has been dead for over 200 years.

 

[fskimospy]

Nowhere in the constitution does it say that congress can make an organization of unelected officials do it's job for it because congress is lazy. If you go by a strict interpretation of the constitution the US treasury is also unconstitutional. So is the national guard.

That would be a seriously crazy reading to say that Congress can exercise its powers, but it can't hire someone to exercise those powers at the pleasure of Congress.

 

[PJABBER]

Excellent refutation of the science.

Not refuting the science. Just the politics. The science commentary is being done elsewhere.

By the way, Ms. Shira, where is YOUR independent analysis and supporting data? Could we get a peer review and a skim soy latte with that? Hmmmm?

 

[fskimospy]

Not refuting the science. Just the politics. The science commentary is being done elsewhere.

By the way, Ms. Shira, where is YOUR independent analysis and supporting data? Could we get a peer review and a skim soy latte with that? Hmmmm?

I heartily endorse your call for sources that are peer reviewed. You do realize that this standard would run contrary to pretty much every thread you've ever created, right?

Furthermore, I'm not sure that you actually know what peer review is. The study that shira linked in the other thread is published in a scientific journal, meaning it was peer reviewed.

 

[Patranus]

Nowhere in the constitution does it say that congress can make an organization of unelected officials do it's job for it because congress is lazy. If you go by a strict interpretation of the constitution the US treasury is also unconstitutional. So is the national guard.

You are right. The EPA was created via executive order not by congress.
(No where does the Constitution grant this power to the executive branch)

 

[zmatt]

That would be a seriously crazy reading to say that Congress can exercise its powers, but it can't hire someone to exercise those powers at the pleasure of Congress.

The EPA doesn't have elected officials and doesn't answer to congress. It answers to the president. That is illegal. The president cant make a department that controls an aspect of congress's power. Furthermore congress can't or at least shouldn't be giving away the power of elected officials to people who don't have to answer to constituents. You can't vote the head of the EPA out of office if you wanted too. Considering how much power the EPA has that is scary.

 

[fskimospy]

The EPA doesn't have elected officials and doesn't answer to congress. It answers to the president. That is illegal. The president cant make a department that controls an aspect of congress's power. Furthermore congress can't or at least shouldn't be giving away the power of elected officials to people who don't have to answer to constituents. You can't vote the head of the EPA out of office if you wanted too. Considering how much power the EPA has that is scary.

This is not correct, Congress has regulatory power over the EPA, hence why when the EPA was not enforcing the Clean Air Act, the courts forced it to bow to legislative authority. The EPA absolutely answers to Congress.

Congress must give away those powers in order for the government to function. Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce. Do you want them out there manning toll booths or is it okay for them to delegate this authority to an unelected executive agency?

Congress can rescind that authority at any time if it so chooses. It hasn't.

 

[Patranus]

Congress must give away those powers in order for the government to function. Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce. Do you want them out there manning toll booths or is it okay for them to delegate this authority to an unelected executive agency?

Why would I be paying a toll to travel from California to Oregon?
How is a personal individual going from state A to state B an act of "interstate commerce"?

 

[fskimospy]

Way to miss the point.

 

[Patranus]

Way to miss the point.

NM.

(don't feed the troll....don't feed the troll...don't feed the troll)

 

[fskimospy]

NM.

(don't feed the troll....don't feed the troll...don't feed the troll)

If people didn't feed the trolls, who would you talk to? It's not my fault you don't appear to understand the delegation of congressional authority.

 

[Patranus]

If people didn't feed the trolls, who would you talk to? It's not my fault you don't appear to understand the delegation of congressional authority.

Its not my fault that liberals think lack of commerce constitutes commerce and can therefore be regulated.

(I keep telling my self to not feed the troll but it is hard.)

 

[fskimospy]

Its not my fault that liberals think lack of commerce constitutes commerce and can therefore be regulated.

(I keep telling my self to not feed the troll but it is hard.)

The example was to express the desirability of congressional delegation of power in certain circumstances. It was not to address the constitutionality of the possibility of federal toll booths on the interstate system.

You do not appear to understand how our system of government functions and how Congress delegates power to executive agencies. It would now seem that you may have been alerted to this lack of knowledge on your part and are trying to divert the discussion to something else.

If you had known better, there's no way you would have made such ignorant postings earlier. Like I said before, you seem to be a vehement defender of what you think the Constitution means, which bears little resemblance to what it actually means.

 

[Patranus]

Like I said before, you seem to be a vehement defender of what you think the Constitution means, which bears little resemblance to what it actually means.

Please explain the meaning of

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[Patranus]

Article 1 Section 8 - The Power of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Please enlighten me where powers are delegated to congress to do 1/2 the stuff they do.

 

[Patranus]

Liberal judges might *want* the constitution to say something else so they can make it mean something else but that doesn't mean it actually says what the liberals want it to say.

The only thing that is accomplished by such made up authority is taking the powers inherent to every man, woman, and child and relinquishing them.

Then again liberals don't even know what the meaning of 'is' is

 

[rchiu]

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....

Yeah I am sure it's the same to sleep in a room with bunch of plants and sleep in your garage with your car running.

I don't like green peace nuts with their sacrifice everything for green earth ideas but try go to cities like Beijing and othe heavily polluted cities and you'd appreciate a nice clean city. I would support an international effort to reduce pollution, within reason.

 

[Patranus]

Yeah I am sure it's the same to sleep in a room with bunch of plants and sleep in your garage with your car running.

I don't like green peace nuts with their sacrifice everything for green earth ideas but try go to cities like Beijing and othe heavily polluted cities and you'd appreciate a nice clean city. I would support an international effort to reduce pollution, within reason.

I don't think anyone is saying that willfully polluting the earth is a good thing.
I think everyone is "pro" recycling.

The point is that the government is using this as yet another excuse to regulate every aspect of our lives. The fact of the matter is that the USA has achieved 50% of what was outlined under the Kyoto protocol with zero government intervention and regulation of CO2.

 

[Duwelon]

Liberal judges might *want* the constitution to say something else so they can make it mean something else but that doesn't mean it actually says what the liberals want it to say.

The only thing that is accomplished by such made up authority is taking the powers inherent to every man, woman, and child and relinquishing them.

Then again liberals don't even know what the meaning of 'is' is

Rulings made my judges should stand in my opinion for a single case, and be referred to congress to be either made a law or overturned within a limited period of time. Legislating from the bench is a very tragic thing because it has let our government become comprised very rapidly by people with very narrow agendas and little love of anything else.

 

[Zebo]

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.

Exactly, Zero is leveraging the EPA to do his dirty work since no one believes university scientists anymore, to get Cap and Trade (Tax) passed.

This asshole really wants to tank the US Economy once and for all.

You guys wanna know the worst thing about Cap and trade? It's his buddies on Wall Street next bail out. Paid for by you already in debt to wall street for trillions.

READ and weep my liberal friends who suck Obama Cock thinking he's a liberal.

From Matt Taibbi's "The Great American Bubble Machine" in Rolling Stone Issue 1082-83.

Fast-forward to today. It's early June in Washington, D.C. Barack Obama, a popular young politician whose leading private campaign donor was an investment bank called Goldman Sachs — its employees paid some $981,000 to his campaign — sits in the White House. Having seamlessly navigated the political minefield of the bailout era, Goldman is once again back to its old business, scouting out loopholes in a new government-created market with the aid of a new set of alumni occupying key government jobs.

Gone are Hank Paulson and Neel Kashkari; in their place are Treasury chief of staff Mark Patterson and CFTC chief Gary Gensler, both former Goldmanites. (Gensler was the firm's co-head of finance.) And instead of credit derivatives or oil futures or mortgage-backed CDOs, the new game in town, the next bubble, is in carbon credits — a booming trillion- dollar market that barely even exists yet, but will if the Democratic Party that it gave $4,452,585 to in the last election manages to push into existence a groundbreaking new commodities bubble, disguised as an "environmental plan," called cap-and-trade. The new carbon-credit market is a virtual repeat of the commodities-market casino that's been kind to Goldman, except it has one delicious new wrinkle: If the plan goes forward as expected, the rise in prices will be government-mandated. Goldman won't even have to rig the game. It will be rigged in advance.

Here's how it works: If the bill passes, there will be limits for coal plants, utilities, natural-gas distributors and numerous other industries on the amount of carbon emissions (a.k.a. greenhouse gases) they can produce per year. If the companies go over their allotment, they will be able to buy "allocations" or credits from other companies that have managed to produce fewer emissions. President Obama conservatively estimates that about $646 billion worth of carbon credits will be auctioned in the first seven years; one of his top economic aides speculates that the real number might be twice or even three times that amount.

The feature of this plan that has special appeal to speculators is that the "cap" on carbon will be continually lowered by the government, which means that carbon credits will become more and more scarce with each passing year. Which means that this is a brand new commodities market where the main commodity to be traded is guaranteed to rise in price over time. The volume of this new market will be upwards of a trillion dollars annually; for comparison's sake, the annual combined revenues of all electricity suppliers in the U.S. total $320 billion.

Goldman wants this bill. The plan is (1) to get in on the ground floor of paradigmshifting legislation, (2) make sure that they're the profitmaking slice of that paradigm and (3) make sure the slice is a big slice. Goldman started pushing hard for capandtrade long ago, but things really ramped up last year when the firm spent $3.5 million to lobby climate issues. (One of their lobbyists at the time was none other than Patterson, now Treasury chief of staff.) Back in 2005, when Hank Paulson was chief of Goldman, he personally helped author the bank's environmental policy, a document that contains some surprising elements for a firm that in all other areas has been consistently opposed to any sort of government regulation. Paulson's report argued that "voluntary action alone cannot solve the climatechange problem." A few years later, the bank's carbon chief, Ken Newcombe, insisted that capandtrade alone won't be enough to fix the climate problem and called for further public investments in research and development. Which is convenient, considering that Goldman made early investments in wind power (it bought a subsidiary called Horizon Wind Energy), renewable diesel (it is an investor in a firm called Changing World Technologies) and solar power (it partnered with BP Solar), exactly the kind of deals that will prosper if the government forces energy producers to use cleaner energy. As Paulson said at the time, "We're not making those investments to lose money."

The bank owns a 10 percent stake in the Chicago Climate Exchange, where the carbon credits will be traded. Moreover, Goldman owns a minority stake in Blue Source LLC, a Utahbased firm that sells carbon credits of the type that will be in great demand if the bill passes. Nobel Prize winner Al Gore, who is intimately involved with the planning of cap-and-trade, started up a company called Generation Investment Management with three former bigwigs from Goldman Sachs Asset Management, David Blood, Mark Ferguson and Peter Harris. Their business? Investing in carbon offsets. There's also a $500 million Green Growth Fund set up by a Goldmanite to invest in greentech … the list goes on and on. Goldman is ahead of the headlines again, just waiting for someone to make it rain in the right spot. Will this market be bigger than the energyfutures market?

"Oh, it'll dwarf it," says a former staffer on the House energy committee.

Well, you might say, who cares? If cap-and-trade succeeds, won't we all be saved from the catastrophe of global warming? Maybe — but capandtrade, as envisioned by Goldman, is really just a carbon tax structured so that private interests collect the revenues. Instead of simply imposing a fixed government levy on carbon pollution and forcing unclean energy producers to pay for the mess they make, cap-and-trade will allow a small tribe of greedy-as-hell Wall Street swine to turn yet another commodities market into a private taxcollection scheme. This is worse than the bailout: It allows the bank to seize taxpayer money before it's even collected.

"If it's going to be a tax, I would prefer that Washington set the tax and collect it," says Michael Masters, the hedgefund director who spoke out against oilfutures speculation. "But we're saying that Wall Street can set the tax, and Wall Street can collect the tax. That's the last thing in the world I want. It's just asinine."

Cap-and-trade is going to happen. Or, if it doesn't, something like it will. The moral is the same as for all the other bubbles that Goldman helped create, from 1929 to 2009. In almost every case, the very same bank that behaved recklessly for years, weighing down the system with toxic loans and predatory debt, and accomplishing nothing but massive bonuses for a few bosses, has been rewarded with mountains of virtually free money and government guarantees — while the actual victims in this mess, ordinary taxpayers, are the ones paying for it.

It's not always easy to accept the reality of what we now routinely allow these people to get away with; there's a kind of collective denial that kicks in when a country goes through what America has gone through lately, when a people lose as much prestige and status as we have in the past few years. You can't really register the fact that you're no longer a citizen of a thriving first-world democracy, that you're no longer above getting robbed in broad daylight, because like an amputee, you can still sort of feel things that are no longer there.

But this is it. This is the world we live in now. And in this world, some of us have to play by the rules, while others get a note from the principal excusing them from homework till the end of time, plus 10 billion free dollars in a paper bag to buy lunch. It's a gangster state, running on gangster economics, and even prices can't be trusted anymore; there are hidden taxes in every buck you pay. And maybe we can't stop it, but we should at least know where it's all going.

 

[Zebo]

Article 1 Section 8 - The Power of Congress


Please enlighten me where powers are delegated to congress to do 1/2 the stuff they do.

LOL Patreanus please stop - 99% of what congress passes is unconstitutional due to wild liberal interpretations of the General Welfare Clause and Commerce clause since FDR threatened to pack courts. You can't stop it or go back to enumeration - power corrupts.