I told you Obama was a loser. He gave all of you another snow job. He said he wanted to lower CO2 emissions from cars and all the greenies swarm around him as he was an al-gore clone. Now, Obama is asking the States to impose stricker CO2 emissions from cars because the idiots at his EPA do not have mechanisms in place to address the problem.
On Jan 28, 6:17 am, "Mercury.Sailor" <[email protected]> wrote: > What happened Silver you mind freeze over from too much PerpaFrost?? > > On Jan 25, 8:50 pm, silver <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > That was the only thing that the SC did - ruled that EPA can classify > > CO2 as a pollutant. > > Now look at the CAA. What Title are they going to put CO2 under? > > They would need to create a new Title, Title VII - Reduction of Global > > Warming Gases (or something like that). In order to add a new Title > > the ACT itself has to be ammended, and like I stated earlier - it > > ain't happening. > > >http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/ > > > On Jan 25, 5:38 pm, "Mercury.Sailor" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > You dont need a provision in the CAA to regulate GHG as the SC has ruled > > > that Co2 is a Pollutant. > > > > You dont want clean air? Is that it? > > > > On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 8:27 PM, silver <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > Yes. The SC ruled that the EPA can use the CAA to regulate GHG but as > > > > it stands right now the CAA has no provisions in it to do so. In > > > > order for the CAA to be used for that purpose it has to be ammended, > > > > and as we all know only Congress can ammend an ACT. > > > > > By the way things look today and the slow moving snail like > > > > incompetence of Congress - It would take years before they even > > > > address ammending the ACT. > > > > > On Jan 25, 5:13 pm, "Mercury.Sailor" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Supreme Court Clears the Air on CO2 Regulation > > > > > By Leo P. Dombrowski > > > > > > On April 2, 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the > > > > > Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") has the authority to regulate > > > > > greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions from motor vehicles as "air > > > > > pollutants" under the Clean Air Act. Although the court left open the > > > > > possibility that the EPA might decline to exercise its authority to > > > > > regulate, given the sweeping nature of the court's opinion and the > > > > > EPA's past statements about global warming, it appears almost certain > > > > > that the agency will have to begin the rulemaking process. > > > > > >http://www.wildman.com/bulletin/April_2007/1/ > > > > > > On Jan 24, 11:53 pm, silver <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > The EPA cannot use the Clean Air Act to regulate CO2 emissions > > > > > > because > > > > > > there are no provisions in the CAA to address CO2. It would take an > > > > > > act of congress to require EPA to promulgate regulations for CO2 > > > > > > emissions. > > > > > > > On Jan 24, 11:55 am, "Mercury.Sailor" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > A pity it has not been done years ago. US car makers would not > > > > > > > > be > > > > into > > > > > > > > trouble nowadays > > > > > > > > That takes "thinking and heart" something that was clearly lacking > > > > > > > from our policy makers, in the past. > > > > > > > > On Jan 24, 2:43 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Great ! > > > > > > > > > A pity it has not been done years ago. US car makers would not > > > > > > > > be > > > > into > > > > > > > > trouble nowadays and they would be exporters. Probably they > > > > > > > > would > > > > not > > > > > > > > export assembled cars, but they would export green engines. > > > > > > > > > In any case, congratulations ! > > > > > > > > > It is a turn toward the right direction and it will produce > > > > > > > > fruits > > > > in > > > > > > > > years to come. > > > > > > > > > Peace and best wishes. > > > > > > > > > Xi > > > > > > > > > On 24 ene, 17:57, "Mercury.Sailor" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > First 100 Days: Obama's first climate change target > > > > > > > > > > After eight years of inaction on climate change by the federal > > > > > > > > > government, we can now look forward to the Obama > > > > > > > > > administration > > > > > > > > > tackling global warming head on. With not a minute to lose, > > > > > > > > > Lisa > > > > > > > > > Jackson, the soon-to-be new head of the EPA, should move > > > > > > > > > quickly > > > > to > > > > > > > > > capitalize on the momentum of states that have so far been the > > > > leaders > > > > > > > > > in fighting global warming. There is no better place to start > > > > than by > > > > > > > > > establishing a national greenhouse gas emission standard for > > > > > > > > > automobiles based on California's landmark clean car law. > > > > >http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/01/22/first-100-days-obama... > > > > > > > > > > My hope would be the new EPA tackling coal burning utilities > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > bringing them to thier knees!- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "World-thread" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/world-thread?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
