EPA creates a guaranteed way for Obama emission limits as "Plan B" if Congress won't pass.

Yep - an end run around the peoples' elected representatives in Congress.

BTW, since CO2 is now a human health hazard, will EPA regulate breathing? Seriously. Why not?

 

Come on Tim - you know why.

 

No, really, I don't. If CO2 is a human health hazard, then EPA should regulate it, right.

The only obvious answer is that CO2 is NOT a human health hazard. The average home has CO2 levels twice that of the atmosphere. Submariners live in a environment with CO2 at least 10 times the atmospheric concentration.

It is not a health hazard at any reasonably conceivable ambient concentration and yet EPA has just declared it as such.

This is all political - simply meant to give a boost to Copenhagen. It is not the "science based" approach that was promised by this president.

 

President Obama is doing *exactly* what he promised: he put scientists in charge at the EPA, and given them power.

Certainly a different approach than 'gut the EPA with a bushie lackeye', but different strokes for different folks, I guess.

As for Tim's CO2 isn't a human danger argument: reasoning like that could a denialist make. Oh wait, nevermind.

 

Congress wrote the law that allows for endangerment findings and regulations based on such. How is using a Congress-approved process doing an end-run around Congress?

Just because a pollutant can be produced in a natural process does not preclude regulation of emissions from overt, intentional, and non-natural acts.

Please don't act as if you "seriously" asked such a stupid question. It insults your intelligence.

 

Where is the "human health hazard"? So please, don't talk to me about being stupid. There is no human health hazard at environmentally ambient (and even 10x ambient) levels. This is extremely well established scientifically. CO2 is not dangerous whatsoever in present day concentrations or even at an IPCC-assumed doubled pre-industrial level.

And any assumptions of risk due to CO2-induced warming exist only within climate models built on very shakey foundations. Even the IPCC will not call their models "predictions".

So upon what is an endangerment finding based? It is bogus "science". It is climate modeling. There is no scientific evidence that CO2 presents any danger to human health at present - and it would only do so in the future if the worst case climate models come to pass and only then if you assume that a warming climate is dangerous to humans (hint: it is far less dangerous to humanity than would be a cooling climate).

So this is EPA "science" by conjecture, not empirical evidence or demonstrated fact.

 

Obviously the endangerment finding is based on the conclusion that AGW is occurring. Since you disagree with that conclusion, you will naturally disagree with the finding. There's no need to rehash that debate which is going on in several other threads.

Nothing in the law says that the threat has to exist at "environmentally ambient levels". All it says is "air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." [CAAA 202, 42 USC 7521(a)] (GHGs are already classified as pollution as a result of Mass. v. EPA.) The law allows for indirect effects to be considered, for good reason, as many effects of air pollution are indirect, such as the formation of ground-level ozone from VOC and NOx, or transport of mercury from the air to water to fish to humans, with several chemical changes along the way.

The finding states that the threat to public health comes from increased temperatures. As we all know, ground-level ozone formation is heavily favored at higher temperatures (>90 degF), and ozone has proven detrimental health effects (both short and long term).

The phrase "human health hazard" does not appear in the finding or the relevant section of the law, or my previous post. What or who are you quoting?

 

Actually he skirted the issue when it came to Cap and Trade.
He never could have won in the coal states with that platform.

 

That is simply incorrect. Obama clearly supported C/T in the campaign. It was right on his webpage.

"Barack Obama and Joe Biden support implementation of a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions..."

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/EnvironmentFactSheet.pdf

 

It may have been on his web page ,but the actual ramification of C&T
was covered up by the campaign and by the media.

Barack Obama to Bankrupt Coal Plants - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com
"In response to questions about why the story is only surfacing now, the closing days of the election cycle, the San Francisco Chronicle asserts that the audio containing the quotes has always been posted at its website and that there was no intent to hide it.

The McCain Campaign pounced, naturally, with both John McCain and Sarah Palin pointing out Barack Obama's stand on coal in rallies in Pennsylvania and Ohio. Asked Sarah Palin, ''Why is the audiotape just now surfacing?"

That may be a question that Hillary Clinton and some of Barack Obama's other primary opponents may be asking. In any case the fact that the news of Barack Obama's plans to bankrupt the coal industry has come out only in the last weekend may not help Barack Obama. The thing about last minute revelations is that it gives little time for the candidate to respond to them and spin them."

 

Please don't waste my time with thoroughly-debunked crap.

 

EPA: Greenhouse Gases Threaten Public Health

 

What a lame response.
What exactly is debunked?
Was Obamas interview and quote taken out of context?

 

I'm not going to rehash a non-issue from the 2008 campaign. Obama supports and has supported cap and trade. I provided proof of that. The onus is therefore on you to demonstrate some kind of vast media conspiracy. One quote with no context is not sufficient evidence of such.

TimBikes - I did a search on that link and did not find the phrase. Another waste of time.

 

Funny Politburo. You are trying to skirt the issue. They are many points in that link that say GHG's cause health problems. But since it doesnt specifically say "human health hazard" You choose to ignore it

 

Hi Dave. Please read the whole thread before jumping in. mojo was not talking at all about health hazards. He/she was just rehashing a myth from the 2008 campaign.

As for the source of the health hazard, it was addressed previously. It was Tim's phrase, in quotes, that was puzzling me, since I didn't see it in any of the materials I reviewed to make the post.

 

You know, when it was -4 the other morning, the coldest it has been in these parts in December in the longest time, I thought to myself, where the hell is this global warming everyone keeps talking about. I welcome warmer temperatures, longer growing seasons, less snow, ice and freezing my nice person off.

As for the CO2 crap, anything to make a buck man, so who wants some carbon credits?

 

Repeat after me: Weather != climate, weather != climate, weather != climate.

 

So you believe voters in coal mining states were aware that Obama is planning to bankrupt the coal industry ?