Now, now. You don't know that, you're just projecting. Let's see what happens, okay. Obama has a TON of stuff on his plate, thanks to Bush. He's not, after all, the Messiah he's accused of being, he's just human. And he's only been in office a week. Sheesh.
On Jan 28, 7:34 am, silver <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
