Thats tax FUNDED!
Time for bed... On Jan 29, 9:35 pm, "Mercury.Sailor" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
