> 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)
Says you!! And that Heritage Foundation you receive all of your faux information from! :o) On Jan 29, 8:13 pm, silver <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
