Obama and Lisa Jackson seize control of CO2 production

[werepossum]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...Tz-lTw?docId=328b30b21ef54b97a51fdacdcbeb06dc

Stymied in Congress, the Obama administration is moving unilaterally to clamp down on greenhouse emissions, announcing plans for new power plants and oil refinery emission standards over the next year.

In an announcement posted on the agency's website late Thursday, Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa Jackson said the aim was to better cope with pollution contributing to climate change.

"We are following through on our commitment to proceed in a measured and careful way to reduce GHG pollution that threatens the health and welfare of Americans," Jackson said in a statement. She said emissions from power plants and oil refineries constitute about 40 percent of the greenhouse gas pollution in this country.

President Barack Obama had said two days after the midterm elections that he was disappointed Congress hadn't acted on legislation achieving the same end, signaling that other options were under consideration.

Jackson's announcement came on the same day that the administration showed a go-it-alone approach on federal wilderness protection — another major environmental issue. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said his agency was repealing the Bush era's policy limiting wilderness protection, which was adopted under former Interior Secretary Gale Norton.

On climate change, legislation in Congress putting a limit on heat-trapping greenhouse gases and allowing companies to buy and sell pollution permits under that ceiling — a system known as "cap and trade" — stalled in the Senate earlier this year after narrowly clearing the House. Republicans assailed it as "cap and tax," arguing that it would raise energy prices.

But the Senate in late June rejected by a 53-47 vote a challenge brought by Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski that would have denied the EPA the authority to move ahead with the rules.

Jackson noted in Thursday's statement that her agency that several state and local governments and environmental groups had sued EPA over the agency's failure to update or publish new standards for fossil fuel plants and petroleum refineries.

Two days after the midterm elections, Obama served notice that he would look for ways to control global warming pollution other than Congress placing a ceiling on it.

"Cap-and-trade was just one way of skinning the cat; it was not the only way," he said. "I'm going to be looking for other means to address this problem."

Unfortunately this means that those companies holding off expansion for fear of Obama's and the Democrats' policies will still be waiting. We can only hope that the scheme will be sensible and sane and not completely kill our economy - and of course hope that those companies holding off to see what is going to happen with energy costs will not just give up and invest their resources in other nations.

Of course, this does give us an answer as to The Messiah's new tack. He'll compromise where he thinks he has to, and he'll rule as Imperial Obama where he thinks he can. This should be good news to the Pubbies in 2012 anyway, as Imperial Obama has not proved popular with a majority of voters.

 

[IGBT]

the carbonCON is on. A institutionalized alarmist hoax and lie that will purge mega billions from the economy and result in lost jobs that will flee the US. But wait..isn't this what you voted for??

 

[wirednuts]

nothing wrong with trying to stop smog.

 

[Toastedlightly]

nothing wrong with trying to stop smog.

CO2 =/= smog. Smog is caused by other pollutants (volatile organic compounds and the like).

 

[sMiLeYz]

So many ridiculous slogans in this thread:

"CarbonCON"

"Imperial Obama"

"Seize control"

The EPA is doing it's job, enforcing environmental standards. You know like what's suppose to be doing, instead of big giveaways to polluters during the Bush years?

 

[bfdd]

So many ridiculous slogans in this thread:

"CarbonCON"

"Imperial Obama"

"Seize control"

The EPA is doing it's job, enforcing environmental standards. You know like what's suppose to be doing, instead of big giveaways to polluters during the Bush years?

enforcing environmental standards that they have no proof are for the benefit of us. we know far to little about CO2 and it's effects on the environment to make any decision either way. Wanting to cut down on smog and local environmental pollutants sure, but CO2 is NOT a pollutant in any common sense nor can it scientifically be proven to be one. This shit is stupid and the Obama haters are right to call this the carbon con.

 

[boomerang]

Global redistribution of wealth with a "cut" for the organizers. The reports of the death of the Chicago Climate Exchange are greatly exaggerated.

 

[Jhhnn]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...Tz-lTw?docId=328b30b21ef54b97a51fdacdcbeb06dc


Unfortunately this means that those companies holding off expansion for fear of Obama's and the Democrats' policies will still be waiting. We can only hope that the scheme will be sensible and sane and not completely kill our economy - and of course hope that those companies holding off to see what is going to happen with energy costs will not just give up and invest their resources in other nations.

Of course, this does give us an answer as to The Messiah's new tack. He'll compromise where he thinks he has to, and he'll rule as Imperial Obama where he thinks he can. This should be good news to the Pubbies in 2012 anyway, as Imperial Obama has not proved popular with a majority of voters.

Nice FUD! The slanderous innuendo is particularly touching.

 

[sMiLeYz]

enforcing environmental standards that they have no proof are for the benefit of us. we know far to little about CO2 and it's effects on the environment to make any decision either way. Wanting to cut down on smog and local environmental pollutants sure, but CO2 is NOT a pollutant in any common sense nor can it scientifically be proven to be one. This shit is stupid and the Obama haters are right to call this the carbon con.

Theres a global scientific consensus on CO2 affecting the climate, you ever heard of greenhouses? Denial is apparently not just a river in Egypt.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Theres a global scientific consensus on CO2 affecting the climate, you ever heard of greenhouses? Denial is apparently not just a river in Egypt.

The vast majority of CO2 is naturally occurring, so how is taxing it going to reduce what is being produced by nature?

 

[bfdd]

Theres a global scientific consensus on CO2 affecting the climate, you ever heard of greenhouses? Denial is apparently not just a river in Egypt.

We do not know if the effect is beneficial or detrimental. To act in any way would be an emotional decision, not a logical one.

 

[sMiLeYz]

We do not know if the effect is beneficial or detrimental. To act in any way would be an emotional decision, not a logical one.

rofl, i suppose the entire scientific community are acting out of emotion not logic?

 

[sMiLeYz]

The vast majority of CO2 is naturally occurring, so how is taxing it going to reduce what is being produced by nature?

Factories, cars, energy plants are part of nature. Sure.

 

[Gyhrg71]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...Tz-lTw?docId=328b30b21ef54b97a51fdacdcbeb06dc


Unfortunately this means that those companies holding off expansion for fear of Obama's and the Democrats' policies will still be waiting. We can only hope that the scheme will be sensible and sane and not completely kill our economy - and of course hope that those companies holding off to see what is going to happen with energy costs will not just give up and invest their resources in other nations.

Of course, this does give us an answer as to The Messiah's new tack. He'll compromise where he thinks he has to, and he'll rule as Imperial Obama where he thinks he can. This should be good news to the Pubbies in 2012 anyway, as Imperial Obama has not proved popular with a majority of voters.

So what was your reaction to Bush's Clear Skies Act in 2003?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_Skies_Act_of_2003

Here is the meat of it:

The resulting proposal was a market-based cap-and-trade approach which intends to legislate power plant emissions caps without specifying the specific methods used to reach those caps. The Initiative would reduce the cost and complexity of compliance and the need for litigation. Current power plant emissions amounted to 67% of all sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions (in the United States), 37% of mercury emissions, and 25% of all nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions. Only SO2 has been administered under a cap-and-trade program.
The goals of the Initiative are three-fold:

• Cut SO2 emissions by 73%, from emissions of 11 million tons to a cap of 4.5 million tons in 2010, and 3 million tons in 2018.
• Cut NOx emissions by 67%, from emissions of 5 million tons to a cap of 2.1 million tons in 2008, and to 1.7 million tons in 2018.
• Cut mercury emissions by 69%, from emissions of 48 tons to a cap of 26 tons in 2010, and 15 tons in 2018.
• Actual emissions caps would be set to account for different air quality needs in the East and West.

 

[Darwin333]

the carbonCON is on. A institutionalized alarmist hoax and lie that will purge mega billions from the economy and result in lost jobs that will flee the US. But wait..isn't this what you voted for??

Shrug, I'll make millions off of it.

 

[Darwin333]

rofl, i suppose the entire scientific community are acting out of emotion not logic?

What is logical about moving pollution somewhere else if it is truly a global problem? You do realize that is what will happen right?

If Mexico was half smart they would be building a fuckton of cheap coal powered power plants right on the border and selling us power.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Factories, cars, energy plants are part of nature. Sure.

What percentage of the total CO2 comes from the sources you posted?

 

[Toastedlightly]

So what was your reaction to Bush's Clear Skies Act in 2003?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_Skies_Act_of_2003

Here is the meat of it:

That seems like a good deal. Those are toxic material which are directly detrimental to health. CO2 is a rather mixed bag. It is not toxic, however it does effect our environment (positively or negatively, who knows now).

CO2 is the end link in many reactions (notably combustion). Reduce our CO2 uses, we reduce the amount of combustion (and hence our energy production ability). There are no free lunches.

 

[Blackjack200]

That seems like a good deal. Those are toxic material which are directly detrimental to health. CO2 is a rather mixed bag. It is not toxic, however it does effect our environment (positively or negatively, who knows now).

CO2 is the end link in many reactions (notably combustion). Reduce our CO2 uses, we reduce the amount of combustion (and hence our energy production ability). There are no free lunches.

Nuclear, wind, solar, and hydro are all ways of getting power without combustion.

Even with combustion, CO2 can be captured and stored underground. And burning methane releases far less CO2 than burning gasoline.

It will take tremendous effort on every front to reduce CO2 emissions without destroying the economy.

 

[Throckmorton]

It's a popular myth that CO2 isn't toxic. 1% makes you drowsy, 7% causes unconsciousness, 10% causes death.

 

[Amused]

one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy.

Who said this? UN IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer.

You've all been duped.

And science by consensus is not science.

 

[ShawnD1]

What percentage of the total CO2 comes from the sources you posted?

This is what the EPA says about human CO2
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/globalghg.html


This is what EPA says about all of the other sources of CO2
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_natural.html

The primary natural processes that release CO2 into the atmosphere (sources) and that remove CO2 from the atmosphere (sinks) are:
Animal and plant respiration, by which oxygen and nutrients are converted into CO2 and energy, and plant photosynthesis by which CO2 is removed from the atmosphere and stored as carbon in plant biomass;
Ocean-atmosphere exchange, in which the oceans absorb and release CO2 at the sea surface; and
Volcanic eruptions, which release carbon from rocks deep in the Earth’s crust (this source is very small).

The bold one is the only major natural source of CO2. Trees are carbon neutral because they soak up carbon when they grow and they release that same amount of carbon when they decay. Volcanoes release CO2 by melting carbonate rocks. Oceans are the opposite of volcanoes - they soak up CO2 and form carbonate rocks.

A carbonate rock looks like this

 

[Throckmorton]

Who said this? UN IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer.

You've all been duped.

And science by consensus is not science.

Science by science is science, and the greenhouse effect is a physical property of CO2. Despite what your preacher told you, in real life you can't change reality by wishing really hard.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Yet scientists also say that millions of years ago the CO2 concentrations are higher than the present day amount.

 

[spidey07]

It's a popular myth that CO2 isn't toxic. 1% makes you drowsy, 7% causes unconsciousness, 10% causes death.

It's not toxic. Look up the definition of a toxin.