The SC ruled that EPA had the right to regulate CO2 under the CAA because the argument was that CO2 was not an air pollutant (which it is not) and EPA did not have the right to regulate it. Now the SC said that they can regulate it as a "green house gas" under the CAA.
As I stated there are no provisions in the CAA to address green house gases. The Titles and Parts you cited do not accomendate GHGs. Just read the applicability of those Titles, there are no mentions of CO2. In oder for EPA to incorporate CO2 in to the Act they will need to amend the Act. Well in order to amend an Act that would involve congress, and like I said it ain't happening. Also, having 50 states making 50 different standards will drive the automakers crazy. The prices of the autos will sky rocket. On Jan 28, 11:49 pm, 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 »- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
