Well said.
On Jan 29, 2:49 am, Justice <[email protected]> wrote:
> Silver, the Supreme Court gave EPA the power to rule on greenhouse
> gases. You're limiting yourself to the table of contents to the bill
> -- the Court read the whole thing and said they have the power.
>
> The EPA will promulgate rules and put them under whatever section or
> subsection is appropriate.
>
> In the meantime, federal government objections to California's right
> to determine their own environmental policy have been lifted and other
> states will follow suit -- those that were waiting in the wings to
> find out what would happen with California.
>
> It's bogus to believe that states are now being asked to take over the
> job of the US Government -- that's what the automakers want you to
> believe because that's the argument they've used successfully under
> Bush to stall. They virtually set up a war between California and the
> Federal Government, and egged the feds forward by telling them that
> California had no right to set public policy for the entire country.
>
> That's not true any longer. California can set the rules for itself
> and the other states that want clean air, and it's also likely those
> SAME rules will be followed by many states across the country.
> Carmakers don't have to worry about making 2 different cars -- one car
> fits all -- the new California standards -- will be just fine, whether
> individual states follow suit or not.
>
> In addition, the EPA will begin the rulemaking process to clean up air
> across the US.
>
> I know it seems difficult to believe that carmakers would operate
> against their own best interests (smaller cars, more fuel efficient
> cars, less polluting cars) but they have. While its true that
> Americans have bought the big models primarily because gas was cheap,
> it's also true that they wouldn't have purchased them if they hadn't
> been made.
>
> Detroit didn't want to retool and they didn't want to try to compete
> with Japan, Korea and now India and China in the small car market. If
> gas could stay cheap, then Detroit would have its own niche market.
>
> Now that most Americans realize that gas isn't going to stay cheap and
> that it won't pay in the long run to purchase large automobiles unless
> they simply MUST have them for work or because they are too fat to fit
> into smaller cars, the buying habits of most are about to change for
> economic reasons, with a by-product being to save the planet.
>
> And the EPA will accommodate those new rules under the current law.
> Part A under Title I would be a good place to start, but Part C under
> Title II can also accommodate changes.
>
> On Jan 28, 9:10 pm, silver <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Here is the table of contents of the CAA.
> > As you can see there are no provisions in the Act to address CO2.
> > The Act needs to be amended and that will take an act of congress.
>
> > This is the reason why Obama asked the States, because the Federal
> > government can't handle the job.
>
> > Table of Contents
> > Title I - Air Pollution Prevention and Control
> > Part A - Air Quality and Emission Limitations (CAA § 101-131; USC §
> > 7401-7431 )
> > Part B - Ozone Protection (replaced by Title VI)
> > Part C - Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality (CAA §
> > 160-169b; USC § 7470-7492)
> > Part D - Plan Requirements for Nonattainment Areas (CAA § 171-193; USC
> > § 7501-7515)
> > Title II - Emission Standards for Moving Sources
> > Part A - Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards (CAA § 201-219; USC
> > § 7521-7554)
> > Part B - Aircraft Emission Standards (CAA § 231-234; USC § 7571-7574)
> > Part C - Clean Fuel Vehicles (CAA § 241-250; USC § 7581-7590)
> > Title III - General (CAA § 301-328; USC § 7601-7627)
> > Title IV - Acid Deposition Control (CAA § 401-416; USC § 7651-7651o)
> > Title V - Permits (CAA § 501-507; USC § 7661-7661f )
> > Title VI - Stratospheric Ozone Protection (CAA § 601-618; USC §
> > 7671-7671q )
>
> > On Jan 28, 7:07 am, CincyBabe <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > 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
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
