The BUSH EPA was just as dirty and nasty as Bush and Cheney. Thats why they were sued to regulate CO2 as a pollution. The SC ruled that CO2 is a pollution and that the EPA needs to regulate it as such. The Bush EPA no doubt is getting side money from the industry to play games, while children suffer with Asthma attacks!
Some of my friends sued the FDA for not regulating amalgams(mercury) We won!! Sort of. Compromise is what we won, we forced the FDA to give warning that amalgams can be hazardous to pregnant women and children. The US Citizens should all ban together and sue our government for failing to make sure our TAX payer agencies do thier job of regulating the industry that pollutes our air. You can run around in cirlces all you want, Silver...I dont care!!! :o) On Jan 29, 9:03 pm, silver <[email protected]> wrote: > The CAA doesn't list CO2 as an air pollutant. > Therefore EPA has no mechanisms in place to regulate it. > > PS, When it comes to environmental issues I'll run circles around > you. > > On Jan 29, 5:55 pm, "Mercury.Sailor" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > TEEVEE!! I dont do TEEVEE! > > > Co2 is an air pollutant, You said it wasnt. > > > Sudden infant death due to carbon dioxide and other pollutant > > accumulation at the face of a sleeping baby. > > >http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8183123 > > > Why do you like to argue about what is good for our world....Dont you > > enjoy breathing clean air...OOPS thats right you breathe in that smog > > from NJ blowing over into NY on a daily basis! > > > Did you know that in NY, It is illegal to have a hair analysis to > > check for heavy metals. How do you like them apples! > > > On Jan 29, 8:41 pm, silver <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Says you!! And that Heritage Foundation you receive all of your faux > > > information from! :o) > > > ================================== > > > > No, says the SC. Didn't you read the case summary, or do you just > > > repeat what you hear on TV by newsanchors that are glued to their > > > seats and never had any real life experiences. > > > > On Jan 29, 5:26 pm, "Mercury.Sailor" <[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) > > > > > 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 > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
