backtop


Print 77 comment(s) - last by aqaq55.. on Dec 15 at 8:05 AM


Lisa Jackson yesterday announced the EPA's finding that carbon emissions threatened the U.S. via global warming and were thus covered under the Clean Air Act. She plans to implement tough new fuel economy restrictions and new restrictions on manufacturing and power businesses.  (Source: The Detroit News)

The findings give ammo to President Obama's plan to crack down on polluting vehicles. Under the plan by 2016 automakers will have to achieve a fleetwide efficiency of 34.1 mpg or face steep fines.  (Source: Dugan Racing)
Is our lifestyle threatening our planet? The EPA thinks so.

Climate change has taken on the trappings of high drama.  Recent leaked climate emails are threatening to discredit much of the work of a significant UK climate center by suggesting manipulation of the peer review process and falsification of data and advocates of warming are pointing to countless other studies worldwide and suggesting that the time for action is now.  In Copenhagen, world climate talks have began.

And it appears one way or another the U.S. is going to get tough on emissions.  President Obama recently promised to cut U.S. emissions by 83 percent by 2050.  Yesterday, the EPA announced that it would be moving to bypass Congress and implement the foundation of such cuts.

Currently a global warming bill that would implement a carbon trading scheme -- the plan to cut emissions endorsed by President Obama -- has passed the House, but is stuck in a deadlocked Senate with the vote drawn largely on partisan lines.  An alternate route has emerged, to push through climate regulations, though.  The foundation of this approach stems from a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that global warming was covered by the previously passed Clean Air Act. 

The EPA has been evaluating this claim and yesterday announced that its "endangerment finding" revealed that carbon emissions were indeed a threat to the nation's health and covered under the clean air act.  Describes EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, "This long-overdue finding cements 2009's place in history as the year when the United States government began seriously addressing the challenge of greenhouse gas pollution.  [Greenhouse gases] are the primary driver of climate change, which can lead to hotter, longer heat waves that threaten the health of the sick, poor or elderly; increases in ground-level ozone pollution linked to asthma and other respiratory illnesses."

The agency's plans to implement new rules to combat this "threat' are now being aired.

The biggest immediate impact of the decision will be its role in enabling the fuel economy mandates delivered by President Obama.  Under the mandates, large automakers will need to implement fleetwide efficiency of 34.1 mpg by 2016.  That provision is expected to cost the automakers $60B USD.  The plan will essentially push California's emissions targets onto the entire nation.  Advocates say the efficiency upgrade is long overdue.  Critics, though, complain that it will damage an already sick industry.

Similar criticisms exist about the other half of the EPA's action plan -- its plan to regulate greenhouse gases from the power and manufacturing industries.  Some argue that this will result in higher power costs and the movement of manufacturing business overseas to countries like China that do not yet regulate greenhouse emissions.

Jeff Holmstead, EPA air administrator from 2001-05, during the Bush administration, delivered mixed praise for the initiatives.  He states, "[The decision is a] necessary prerequisite for the regulation of greenhouse gases from cars, trucks, businesses, factories, farms, and potentially even apartment buildings, schools, and hospitals.  The hard part is still to come. EPA now has to figure out how it will regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act without undermining the fragile economic recovery."

Robert Meyers, who led the EPA air and radiation office under President George W. Bush, comments that the EPA is approaching the point of no return when it comes to implementing regulation.  He comments, "The main event is to come. EPA indicates that new rules will be issued starting next spring. It will be very difficult to turn back, much less undo all that will be done."

Some businesses and lobbies have threatened to sue the EPA to try to block any new regulations, should they be put into place.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

The shape of the future republic
By Technomage on 12/8/2009 10:47:35 AM , Rating: 5
"Yesterday, the EPA announced that it would be moving to bypass Congress and implement the foundation of such cuts."

Bypassing Congress... How is this representative democracy? Our "betters" have decided, so we will follow, or else. This is so clearly NOT what the founding fathers intended for our republic. It's an oligarchy. Without the consent and participation of Congress these rules must be considered unconstitutional.

Accept this, and there will be more to follow. The existence of these agencies has been the toe in the water, but now we're up to the foot, and before long there will be absolutely no stopping them.




RE: The shape of the future republic
By Suntan on 12/8/2009 10:59:53 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Bypassing Congress... How is this representative democracy? Our "betters" have decided, so we will follow, or else. This is so clearly NOT what the founding fathers intended for our republic. It's an oligarchy.


Now, now. Don’t you remember? This is “change we can believe in.” This time, it’s different. This time, bi-partisan will be how things get done…

…Suckers.

-Suntan


RE: The shape of the future republic
By mdogs444 on 12/8/2009 11:01:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This time, it’s different. This time, bi-partisan will be how things get done…

Ahh...the lie that majority of Chicagoan's fall for time after time.


RE: The shape of the future republic
By rika13 on 12/8/2009 11:14:18 AM , Rating: 1
the majority of Chicagoans dont care about bipartisanship, what gets you elected is either changing your name to something Irish to fool them or being part of a anti-white hate group (Bobby Rush is a Black Panther, Obama's church, the entire congressional black caucus)


RE: The shape of the future republic
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 12/8/2009 11:14:08 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Without the consent and participation of Congress these rules must be considered unconstitutional.

I think you hit the nail on the head there. While these agencies are unconstitutional in a general sense in that they typically violate the separation of powers doctrine, despite O'Connor's misgivings, they continue to exist primarily because Congress enabled the EPA, Congress passes a budget for the EPA, and if someone doesn't like an EPA finding, they can take the issue to an article III court for review.

So if Congress doesn't like this EPA decision, in spite of the fact that the EPA exists so members of congress do not have to be experts in this field and delegates that responsibility to this agency, congress can give them a budget of $0.35 for next year to carry out their mission, or an affected party can appeal their promulgated rules.

So while the toe is in the water, as a practical matter, it will stay a toe. Now get off that slippery slope and get back to work.


RE: The shape of the future republic
By Leper Messiah on 12/8/2009 11:45:22 AM , Rating: 5
"This long-overdue finding cements 2009's place in history as the year when the United States government began seriously addressing the challenge of greenhouse gas pollution. [Greenhouse gases] are the primary driver of climate change, which can lead to hotter, longer heat waves that threaten the health of the sick, poor or elderly; increases in ground-level ozone pollution linked to asthma and other respiratory illnesses."

Yeah, this chick sounds like a real expert to me.

/sarcasm


RE: The shape of the future republic
By lightfoot on 12/8/2009 12:10:37 PM , Rating: 5
So basically she's saying that emitting Carbon Dioxide and Water to the atmosphere (greenhouse gases) somehow creates ground level Ozone (a pollutant that was previously regulated.) That doesn't sound like science to me; that sounds like alchemy.

Either that or she's exploiting scientific ignorance to get people to think that somehow carbon dioxide causes asthma...

Given those two choices Lisa Jackson is clearly an idiot or a liar, or perhaps both.


RE: The shape of the future republic
By lco45 on 12/8/2009 6:09:29 PM , Rating: 2
She's saying it's the same sort of thing, but I have to say I disagree with her.

The Clean Air act really isn't the appropriate vehicle for reducing CO2, because you can't say that CO2 is "dirty" or a pollutant, and it certainly doesn't directly affect the health off people who breath air with slightly more CO2 in it.

I do want to see a reduction in the amount of CO2 we produce, just not sure this is the right way to go about it.

Luke


By Alexvrb on 12/9/2009 5:25:33 PM , Rating: 2
You want to see a reduction in the amount of CO2 we produce? I've got an idea, why don't we have everyone who thinks CO2 reduction is important hold their breath? Problem solved. While we're at it, why don't we attach catalytic converters to cows.

They don't even care about pollution. Their real goal is extending their control over all aspects of our lives. They're just using the best vehicles for that job (pollution/global warming, health care, economic stimulus, fear).


RE: The shape of the future republic
By docawolff on 12/8/2009 11:24:47 AM , Rating: 1
The EPA is acting on the mandate Congress gave them with the Clean Air Act. You may not be old enough to remember, but forty years ago, "acid rain" was changing the pH of lakes in the Northeast and in some cases sterilizing them. Forests were dying. That is the context under which the Clean Air Act was passed. Since then the EPA has been reducing the emissions of acid gasses (NOx and SOx) as well as keeping industry from creating air so polluted that it can result in lethal smog inversions such as happened in London in the 1950's. You ride a bike, run, swim, walk for your health? Without Congress passing the Clean Air Act, you wouldn't be... at least not without a respirator.

But there is a bigger issue here than the EPA: Greenhouse Gas Policy. We should have been at the forefront of the movement. There is technology to be developed and sold! We wasted eight years when we could have been building and developing the energy systems the world is demanding. I don't actually care whether the the globe is warming from CO2 or not. It is enough for me that the rest of the world believes it. Whining that the science is unproven is like whining that early automobiles weren't alive and had no sense. The argument is immaterial. Here's how you will get rich: Build more nukes! Build Thorium reactors! Build carbon capture and sequestration systems! Build solar panels! Build wind turbines! Build tide and wave power plants! Build geothermal plants! Invent new energy technology! Improve today's technology! Then sell the hell out of it!

The world will change. It may not be fair or right, or even logical, but it will change. The Greenhouse Gas issue is one of those changes. Adapt or die.


RE: The shape of the future republic
By mdogs444 on 12/8/2009 11:29:49 AM , Rating: 5
So what you're basically saying is...

lets pass regulations so that businesses can make all sorts of cool stuff to sell everyone for profit while the average joe has to pay more for everything from fuel, to energy, to food.

Seems to be a bit counter productive to me.

Now what we SHOULD do, is let the rest of the world pass whatever they want regarding CO2 levels, and we pass nothing. Then our costs stay the same...and we'll just sell then a bunch of "feel good technology" for profit.


By BlackIceHorizon on 12/8/2009 1:18:26 PM , Rating: 3
A good plan other than the fact that our costs *are changing*. Gasoline and other petroleum derived substances will continue to increase in price, while non-fossil technologies continue to decrease in price. Certainly some will decry the $60 billion (!) this specific standard is projected to cost the automotive industry (American and foreign alike) over a decade. But we spend ten times that annually funding our military, a good portion of which goes to preferentially securing oil rich areas. Our military investment in the Middle East already outweighs the monetary value of the fossil fuels found there, in strict economic terms. That's not even accounting for the other costs to the U.S. of our foreign energy dependence (political destabilization and radicalization in foreign countries, significant exportation of national wealth through an increased trade deficit, proven health effects of fossil pollutants, etc.). We need to reform our energy systems for myriad reasons, and profit is certainly one of them, in addition to the specter of climate change.

That being said, this regulation-heavy bureaucratic approach strikes me as exactly the wrong way to go about these reforms. If we're going to transition to superior energy solutions (nuclear and wind power, more efficient vehicles and mass transit, etc.) it will happen most efficiently and productively through market-friendly approaches - the antithesis of these new regulations. Hardcore Republicans bristle at the notion, but we need new taxes and less regulation. A gradually scaling gas tax, and a similar strategy with GHGs would do everything we need to promote RD&D of superior technologies through a market incentive without the inefficient and bureaucratic nightmare that will be these GHG regulations. Such taxes can even be revenue neutral by legislative provisions requiring commensurate income tax cuts, for example. We need a reform system that is cheaper to implement and less prone to nepotism and special interest lobbying pressure for specific concessions than our government is ever capable of.

Libertarians like those on this site are right to denounce the institution of the legally-complex nightmares that are our current reform proposals. But such cries will fall on deaf ears without superior alternative solutions. It's time to stop simply griping about how our government is doing it the wrong way and start lobbying with serious policy alternatives.


By Technomage on 12/8/2009 12:58:04 PM , Rating: 3
Funny. Yep, I'm old enough to remember the hype of "acid rain".

Can you possibly make a case for regulating our exhalations as toxic emissions? Sure, halitosis is bad, but this is extreme.

The issue of selling stuff is not in the least way addressed by this ridiculous ruling. There has not been a thing in the world that stopped any company that so wished to create green crap to sell to the world. Nada. We haven't wasted any time, since it's industry that builds things to sell, not government, and they haven't seen the potential for payback on their investment just yet.

Yes, the world will change. It would be nice to have the world progress toward a more logical, intelligent, less lemming-like world, but the hopes for that appear small.

That's my hope for change.


RE: The shape of the future republic
By Spuke on 12/8/2009 1:07:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The world will change. It may not be fair or right, or even logical, but it will change. The Greenhouse Gas issue is one of those changes. Adapt or die.
There is no change here. It's the same ole sh!t in a different wrapper.


RE: The shape of the future republic
By Reclaimer77 on 12/8/2009 1:23:13 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The EPA is acting on the mandate Congress gave them with the Clean Air Act. You may not be old enough to remember, but forty years ago, "acid rain" was changing the pH of lakes in the Northeast and in some cases sterilizing them. Forests were dying. That is the context under which the Clean Air Act was passed. Since then the EPA has been reducing the emissions of acid gasses (NOx and SOx) as well as keeping industry from creating air so polluted that it can result in lethal smog inversions such as happened in London in the 1950's. You ride a bike, run, swim, walk for your health? Without Congress passing the Clean Air Act, you wouldn't be... at least not without a respirator.


There is so much wrong with this paragraph, I could take all day. But the most glaring offense here is your assertion that we would all be wearing respirators without the United STates Clean Air Act. Tell me, did I miss it when we placed a large glass dome over the entire US ? Let me get this straight, even though China, India, and other developing and third world countries have NO pollution standards and are far bigger offender, because the United States passed the Clean Air Act, the world can breath without oxygen tanks ? Or the inverse, how does us having a Clean Air act prevent pollution from other countries from contaminating our air ? Again, I must have missed the day where we covered our country with an air tight glass dome..

In short, you are an idiot.


RE: The shape of the future republic
By docawolff on 12/8/2009 2:34:48 PM , Rating: 2
Wow! I guess the first thing you need to know is that local actions produce local air pollution which is usually BUT NOT ALWAYS dispersed globally. Did you happen to notice all the furor at the last summer Olympic games over air quality? The organizers were worried that China's air pollution was so bad that it would harm the athletes. In fact, some athletes boycotted the games because of China's air pollution.

The killing smog in London that I referred to (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_1952) killed between 4,000 and 12,000 from air pollution. Note that the rest of the world did not experience a similar pollution event. You don't need a glass dome, just a good air inversion, and you will be re-breathing ozone, VOCs, SOx, and NOx that was SUPPOSED to be dispersed to the wide world days ago. So yes, I AM saying that because the US passed the Clean Air Act, you, assuming you live in the US, can breath without a respirator every day of the year--not just on the windy ones.

Oh, and a respirator does not necessarily mean oxygen tanks. A good combined chemical and particle filter will take out particulates and acid gasses just fine.

So let me ask this, just out of curiosity: did you intentionally distort what I was saying, or did you truly not understand it?


RE: The shape of the future republic
By Spuke on 12/8/2009 2:56:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wow! I guess the first thing you need to know is that local actions produce local air pollution which is usually BUT NOT ALWAYS dispersed globally.
So we just have a dome over the country. Ok, I can dig that.


By docawolff on 12/8/2009 3:11:07 PM , Rating: 2
Gah!!!! *Pulls remaining hair out and sobs*


RE: The shape of the future republic
By Reclaimer77 on 12/8/2009 3:46:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So yes, I AM saying that because the US passed the Clean Air Act, you, assuming you live in the US, can breath without a respirator every day of the year--not just on the windy ones.


You and your "acid rain" and resperator comments are a bunch of alarmist leftist environmental wacko bullshit. And you know it. The air never has, and never could be, that polluted. And something that happened in London over 50 years ago doesn't mean it was going to happen here. We aren't stupid enough to stack 28, yes TWENTY EIGHT, coal burning power plants in a small area. Combined with all the fireplaces that were used at the time to heat homes.

Oh and I thought it was called "global warming", not "local warming". If the United States is responsible for turning the entire planet into a desert supposedly, than how are air pollutants any different ? Again, we don't live under a dome.

You are either giving us too much credit, or too much blame. I will concede that there was a point in time where the EPA honestly worked for the betterment of the Country, but now we can plainly see the EPA is a pollitical arm of the Liberal party and is backing their socialist agenda. If anyone believes the timing of this announcement by the EPA is cooincidence, they are idiots and saps.


RE: The shape of the future republic
By juserbogus on 12/8/2009 4:19:21 PM , Rating: 2
you obviously don't know what the hell you are talking about or you are out right lying! air in certain parts of the US have been that polluted in our history. a simple search is enough is enough to find out why Congress passed the act in the first place.


RE: The shape of the future republic
By Reclaimer77 on 12/8/2009 6:14:45 PM , Rating: 4
I never said we haven't polluted. But he's going from that, to saying " we would all be wearing gas masks ". Which is speculation at best, and more likely completely unfounded fear mongering.

But using the Clean Air act to classify Co2, something we ALL exhale, as a toxin is purely political and idiotic. And you know it.


By juserbogus on 12/10/2009 9:19:43 AM , Rating: 2
ok, I apologize then.

quote:
But using the Clean Air act to classify Co2, something we ALL exhale, as a toxin is purely political and idiotic. And you know it.
weren't they told to do just that buy the supreme court in '07


RE: The shape of the future republic
By BZDTemp on 12/8/2009 5:41:42 PM , Rating: 1
If the United States is responsible for turning the entire planet into a desert supposedly, than how are air pollutants any different ?

CO2 is a gas and there is such a thing as particles which does not travel into the atmosphere but stays more locally. CO2 acts as a green house gas. Do you need the term "Green house glass" explained?

Also the US is not solely responsible - of course not. However the US stands for something like 20% of the problem while only being like 5% of the worlds population. Guess who will have a relative easy time making changes that will have an impact. Yes - you guessed it. The US. It's like if you are in a classroom and there is to much noise - where best to start getting silence, the kid being loud or all the other kids whispering.


RE: The shape of the future republic
By Reclaimer77 on 12/8/2009 6:18:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
CO2 is a gas and there is such a thing as particles which does not travel into the atmosphere but stays more locally. CO2 acts as a green house gas. Do you need the term "Green house glass" explained?


Have you been living under a rock for the past month ? The "greenhouse effect" was a lie, a fraud. Put forth by liars and biased men with agendas that we (people like you) trusted because they were scientists.

Co2 levels are rising, but global temps have been cooling for 5 years now. Get a clue. The only data that supports global warming is data that was TAINTED or made up !


RE: The shape of the future republic
By lco45 on 12/8/09, Rating: 0
By BZDTemp on 12/9/2009 7:16:11 AM , Rating: 1
Honestly - you're the one living under a rock. Just because a couple of scientist have been simplifying data to take out exceptions from a trend it does not mean there is any lie or fraud. There are thousands of scientist demonstrating what it is all about and if you do not believe science then please explain what is going on.

Where I live we just had the hottest November ever measures. The last decade was the hottest ever and this one in on track to beat that record. In CAL the forrest fires get worse year for year due to lack of rain, the ice caps are melting and so on. You're the one which need to get a clue.

I understand how it is very convenient to think it was all a fraud but please do a little research.


By cruisin3style on 12/8/2009 3:21:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The existence of these agencies has been the toe in the water, but now we're up to the foot


I didn't see anything about the Bush administration's use of executive powers in that article...


RE: The shape of the future republic
By Hardin on 12/8/2009 5:37:08 PM , Rating: 2
What an excellent post. The people in Congress may be incompetent, but at least we vote for them and answer to us. If the EPA can bypass Congress like this then I wouldn't be surprised if we see the Congress being bypassed further in the future.


RE: The shape of the future republic
By aqaq55 on 12/15/2009 8:01:45 AM , Rating: 1
http://ta.gg/3yu

fr ee sh i pp ing

(jordan shoes) $32

(air max) $34

+++

wow


RE: The shape of the future republic
By aqaq55 on 12/15/2009 8:05:50 AM , Rating: 1
http://ta.gg/3yu

fr ee sh i pp ing

(jordan shoes) $32

(air max) $34

+++

wow


efficiency
By superunknown98 on 12/8/2009 11:08:20 AM , Rating: 2
While I agree that global warming is mostly hysteria, and driving a V8 isn't going to kill the planet, why are so many people against forcing more efficncy from car manufactures?

I understand it costs money to research new technology, but the Auto industry have historically been very lazy, with their can't do attitude. Remember when the auto industry said seatbelts were too expensive and nobody would wear them? How many times in the past has the auto industry complained Cafe standards were impossible to attain, only to be reached without going out of business.

The auto industry should be striving for efficiency, not complaining it's impossibe everytime they are asked to do better.




RE: efficiency
By Suntan on 12/8/2009 11:33:34 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Remember when the auto industry said seatbelts were too expensive and nobody would wear them?


Remember when emissions forced technologies into cars that weren’t ready for prime time?

Remember running crappy cars in the mid 80’s that were smaller, more dangerous, first gen throttle bodies with vacuum lines running everywhere? They were a cast iron b!tch to troublshoot and didn’t run all that well even when they were running to spec.

Remember the quad-four engines of the time? I do, they were horrible, hateful engines.

Those were a direct result of car companies being forced to meet requirement before they were ready.

But then, you probably don’t remember any of that (or more likely never experienced it in the first place.) All you know is what you have read on some out of touch website that constantly chirps on that “car companies have all this technology just sitting on their shelves, blah blah blah.”

In your mind, everyone wants more fuel efficient, cleaner running cars. Also, in your mind, car companies can throw the switch and start making these cars that will meet these requirements with little issue. Business 101 says that every car company in the world would then be completely stupid *not* to offer these cars… yet they don’t. Maybe the equations don’t add up in your mind after all.

-Suntan


RE: efficiency
By Omega215D on 12/8/2009 12:07:58 PM , Rating: 2
Not only that it has shown that Emissions Regulations have decreased the fuel economy for all vehicles. So in essence we're burning more gas to be cleaner.


RE: efficiency
By 0ldman on 12/8/2009 2:10:34 PM , Rating: 2
Omega215D, I was about to say that myself.

Push the timing a bit higher, run a bit leaner, get more power and better efficiency, burn LESS gas. At the tailpipe the emissions might be a tad bit worse, but how much less fuel will be consumed and less stuff put into the air if the engines were tuned to run without the emissions requirements?

Considering I can get 24mpg with an 60's carb on a 302 in a 35 year old car that originally got 17mpg...


RE: efficiency
By FITCamaro on 12/8/2009 5:29:19 PM , Rating: 2
Shhh...

Don't tell the drones that carbs actually can get good mileage. I had a buddy with a 77 Vette who was getting 18 MPG city with a carbed motor and a 4-speed. If he'd have had a 6 speed he could've gotten better mileage.


RE: efficiency
By Omega215D on 12/8/2009 10:23:56 PM , Rating: 2
all my motorcycles have carburetors but i would like EFI so i don't have to keep using the enricher on cold days. i'm more of a ride now instead of warming it up kinda guy.


RE: efficiency
By Flunk on 12/8/2009 12:55:03 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think this is quite the same thing. Car manufacters can already produce cars that get >40MPG, and they have 6 years to bring improvements across their whole lines.

My current car gets >40 MPG.


RE: efficiency
By Spuke on 12/8/2009 1:14:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't think this is quite the same thing. Car manufacters can already produce cars that get >40MPG, and they have 6 years to bring improvements across their whole lines.
This is not the issue. The issue isn't whether they can, it's whether it can be done cheaply while still meeting ALL of their customers requirements. You are ONE customer. Car companies have millions of customers and if you don't sell to ALL of them, you fail. They're already going towards meeting the 34 mpg standard and most of them should make it (I doubt Chrysler will...they're already paying fines on current regulations). You also need to remember that meeting this standard doesn't mean that every car will get 34 mpg either. There are formula's used to determine whether or not these standards are met. It's not just a straight average. That's why none of the car companies are complaining about it.


RE: efficiency
By IcePickFreak on 12/8/2009 1:03:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How many times in the past has the auto industry complained Cafe standards were impossible to attain, only to be reached without going out of business.


Technically I suppose, but racking up debt for low-margin over-priced cars isn't exactly going to get you far.

The government is the one that has requirements for 1000 lbs of safety equipment, crumple zones with crumple zones, etc, and now are also suppose to be efficient which generally means small and light - and oh yeah, this needs to be done in 12 months and the cars need to be cheap. Yep, sounds like the government is involved.


RE: efficiency
By lightfoot on 12/8/2009 7:34:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...and the cars need to be cheap.

But they won't be. Cars will only get more expensive from here on out.


Nice
By damianrobertjones on 12/8/2009 11:09:02 AM , Rating: 2
Car companies must be celebrating right now as they have a nice opportunity to sell lots and lots of new vehicles.

Soon, if you haven't got a 40+ mpg car people will look at you with disgust. Like how apple owners look at pc owners.




RE: Nice
By mdogs444 on 12/8/2009 11:12:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Car companies must be celebrating right now as they have a nice opportunity to sell lots and lots of new vehicles.

Doesn't the government have their hands in the car company cookie jar (GE, Chrysler)....and who do you think is going to make the cars according to these mandates?


RE: Nice
By Suntan on 12/8/2009 11:21:40 AM , Rating: 3
When did GE start making cars?

First Comcast, now this. Man they move fast.

-Suntan


RE: Nice
By mdogs444 on 12/8/2009 11:23:13 AM , Rating: 2
ugh, mean GM. But I do appreciate the funny.


RE: Nice
By Omega215D on 12/8/2009 12:05:43 PM , Rating: 2
Hey now, that doesn't seem to be so far fetched. Once cars become electric who better to command them all than General Electric?

*runs for the door* don't throw fruits! that's not being green!


RE: Nice
By Spuke on 12/8/2009 1:22:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
*runs for the door* don't throw fruits! that's not being green!
Would you prefer cabbage?


Can't wait for the Lawsuits to begin
By Davester on 12/8/2009 11:04:38 AM , Rating: 2
Just think about this. With the EPA decision, the next time someone gets in your face, you could sue them for breathing dangerous global warming gases into your face.

The EPA just showed how political they can be. This is a bad sign. Instead of following what is law, they are creating their own laws, which is the job of Congress.




RE: Can't wait for the Lawsuits to begin
By mdogs444 on 12/8/2009 11:08:22 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, a lawsuit has already been filed against the EPA over this regulation attempt. Chances are this will put the issue in court for 2 years before the EPA can even attempt to enforce it. By that time, the GW hysteria will be decided one way or another in the Senate.


By Lord 666 on 12/8/2009 11:12:27 AM , Rating: 3
That's assuming Tiger Woods doesn't have to testify before Congress for his after hour activities.

Just like steroids and baseball, there could be many distractions.


RE: Can't wait for the Lawsuits to begin
By corduroygt on 12/8/2009 11:49:31 AM , Rating: 2
Hopefully by then we'll have a new president, and a different congress and senate. I can only hope Republicans can be smacked back into reality and understand that the health of businesses is literally the health of the country.


By Spuke on 12/8/2009 1:24:34 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I can only hope Republicans can be smacked back into reality and understand that the health of businesses is literally the health of the country.
I can only hope that we don't vote those @$$hats back in. Real change is voting in people that do the job not just blindly following the church of Democrats and Republicans. Haven't you learned anything?


In the future
By Suntan on 12/8/2009 11:06:23 AM , Rating: 3
I have a feeling that 25 years from now, after untold billions will be spent directly on global warming, with even more money spent reallocating wealth in the name of global warming , the response will be: “The fact that global warming has been prevented is proof positive that, our decisive actions kept global warming from impacting the earth…”

And the sad thing is that few people will care at that point just how incorrect that statement may or may not be.

-Suntan




RE: In the future
By raddude9 on 12/8/2009 2:51:48 PM , Rating: 1
yep, just like all that money wasted on those acid rain and ozone layer scares.


RE: In the future
By JediJeb on 12/8/2009 5:28:00 PM , Rating: 2
It's funny but what has been found is that the hole in the ozone closes as the global temperature rises. So did fixing the ozone cause global warming or did global warming fix the ozone?

That was something from the Discovery Channel the other day, but what most people don't understand about ozone is that it takes UV light to create it, so as my chemistry professor said, you are going to have a hole in the ozone layer at the south pole because at times there is no UV light there to create the ozone. Also how long have we had accurate measurments of the ozone layer anyhow? We didn't even know there was a hole in it until we sent a satelite up to study it, so we based the horribly growing ozone hole on a few years of data. It could have been returning to its normal size by getting bigger. The people pushing this legislation are looking at a planet billions of years old and saying what the climate should be by taking a sample for a few hundred years, because that is the true limit of our accurate data, everything else is just estimations. And as we move to more modern ways to measure that data, it throws more variability into the older data. It is like measuring a one inch diameter rock with a yardstick then measuring it with a vernier caliper and saying it grew because it is now a 1.001 inch rock.


the EPA sucks
By Moishe on 12/8/2009 10:38:39 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
"EPA now has to figure out how it will regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act without undermining the fragile economic recovery."

The EPA doesn't care about the economy and being that they are unelected officials... we end up with a super powerful government agency run by appointees who apparently buy into the unproven and highly political GW theory. This agency has the ability to do an end-run around the voters of this country.

What a crock of shite.

Economy be damned, we must reduce our freedom by declaring "AIR" to be a poison. Talk about a means of control and fear-mongering.




RE: the EPA sucks
By mdogs444 on 12/8/2009 10:43:37 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This agency has the ability to do an end-run around the voters of this country.

That's correct. The EPA is nothing more or less than a talking arm of the Executive branch and Obama Administration.

The EPA is also nothing but a cluster F***. They big joke is that the EPA's left hand has no idea what its far left hand is doing.


RE: the EPA sucks
By JediJeb on 12/8/2009 10:53:29 PM , Rating: 2
I must agree. I work in an environmental testing lab, where we do the checks on drinking water and waste water to assure compliance of our clients with the regulations. Honestly the Testing Methods the EPA has written are the worst things I have ever seen. My former lab director told me of one guy they fired because he was totally incompetent as a chemist only to find out a month later he had been hired by the EPA and put in charge of writing new methods. And some there will even boast that it doesn't matter if you have a better way to do the test, or even one that is more accurate, what matters is what that person wrote into a method. I definitely would not call most of them Experts in the field of what affects our climate.


In a word...
By bradmshannon on 12/8/2009 10:37:06 AM , Rating: 2
Stupid!




RE: In a word...
By NullSubroutine on 12/8/2009 10:38:05 AM , Rating: 2
Actually the one word I thought of was: bullshit which the EPA seem to have be made of or smoking.


blame Obama, not the EPA
By rika13 on 12/8/2009 11:02:35 AM , Rating: 2
that girl is the EPA hand of Obama, another one of his cronies in an unelected position, why deal with Congress when you can simply slip it in via regulation instead of actually having to worry about law

considering the job Obama has done so far, he is either grossly incompetent at running a country or incredibly skilled at ruining one

with the EPA being used to push the Obama agenda, expect your electric bills to skyrocket (Ameren and ComEd love it, more profits for the same margin), food prices to skyrocket (keep the poor man poor, and then give him some food stamps to get his vote), and with Obama's crap and trade system, it'll be a shadow tax (something Blago specialized in) on businesses to pay for aforementioned welfare




RE: blame Obama, not the EPA
By Reclaimer77 on 12/8/09, Rating: 0
RE: blame Obama, not the EPA
By Spuke on 12/8/2009 1:33:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why doesn't everyone else see this ?
Because we hear it everytime the Democrats are in charge!!! The Republicans do the same damn thing!! But because the right wing nut huggers are Republicans, it's all well and good when they ruin the country. LOL!

I don't support ANY of them!!! They are ALL sh!t!!! The real change will come when people that represent the people are in charge. Then we can get rid of this BS "my way or the highway" mentality in government. Sometimes I want to live in Europe. At least they know they like it in the a$$. We don't like it in the a$$ but we keep electing people that do. What's up with that?


one possible good thing
By kattanna on 12/8/2009 12:55:10 PM , Rating: 2
if this new regulation is used to finally get new nuclear power plants fast tracked built, then.. maybe it is a good thing.




RE: one possible good thing
By Moishe on 12/9/2009 8:36:59 AM , Rating: 2
Do you see that as the result? All I see is enormous amounts of money being dumped into alternative fuels (which I support). The amount of money we're spending could easily fund another couple new nuke plants.


Act of war
By stilltrying on 12/8/2009 4:42:41 PM , Rating: 2
They have basically made it an act of war against carbon dioxide. So where does that lead to? What all emits carbon dioxide? They are not just worried about tailpipes.




RE: Act of war
By Moishe on 12/9/2009 8:37:59 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly. It's a "green" religion in power and using its power against humankind.


It has begun...
By Abrahmm on 12/8/2009 11:31:31 AM , Rating: 1
Obama: "Commander Jackson... The time has come. Execute order 66"
Jackson: "Yes my lord."




RE: It has begun...
By JediJeb on 12/8/2009 10:42:24 PM , Rating: 2
"So this is how liberty dies: with thunderous applause."
?Padmé Amidala

Lucas must have seen this coming.


Now the truth will come out
By mdogs444 on 12/8/2009 10:40:53 AM , Rating: 2
This is nothing more than a way to promote the Global Warming hysteria and appease to other countries. The Senate cannot pass anything right now because if the Democrats try, they are essentially sealing their own fate in office by telling the people that we are going to raise the prices of everything - energy, fuel, food, consumer products, travel, etc.

However, right now the real truth will come out. Do the lawmakers want to pass emissions standards truly out of concern for the environment - which could be done solely by the EPA in this fashion.....or will they show its nothing more than a huge tax & spend scheme, with the mindset of redistribution of wealth and entitlements within the Unites States by passing Cap & Trade.

Right now, the EPA is making changes and regulations without making money the sole reason for it. But the Democrats in Congress will show their true faces by backing up the entire thing with all new taxes.




"threatening to discredit" really!? BULL!
By juserbogus on 12/8/2009 1:31:03 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
threatening to discredit much of the work of a significant UK climate center by suggesting manipulation of the peer review process and falsification of data and advocates of warming are pointing to countless other studies worldwide and suggesting that the time for action is now.
you keep saying this in your posts but the actually emails don't bare that out when read within context! You should stick to the facts and not interpret small non-contextual samples.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/fu...

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comme...

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/11/uk-hac...

stop falsely fueling the denialists' dogma.




By lco45 on 12/8/2009 7:22:12 PM , Rating: 1
People latch onto whatever supports their opinion. I'll stick with the 99% of scientists who actually know what they're talking about.

Anyway who thinks AGW is a myth should start commenting after completing a degree in climatology, not before.

Luke


campaign promise broken
By tallredeye on 12/8/2009 5:05:13 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't Obama promise during the campaign to stop the politicization of science?




Where is the accountability?
By JediJeb on 12/8/2009 5:56:14 PM , Rating: 2
When the put into this regulation that if in 10 years it is proven that man is not the reason for the climate warming then all the money that was taken from us by fines, taxes and increased expense because of the rule will be returned, then we will know that they truely have our interest and the interest of our nation in mind. Anything less means they are only interested in putting forth their ideals and agendas for what they "think" might be a problem.

If someone like a drug company does something that later turns out to not be the right thing, they fall under class action law suits or worse and must repay the people affected by their decisions. I think it is time our government has to play by the same rules. If this ruling does not have the effect it was supposed to, then the ones that made it are responsible for the consequences. If something like the health care bill does not do what we are told it will do, then those who voted for it should be held responsible. It would cause government officials to actually consider their actions instead of just acting on their whims. Advertisers can not make false claims as to what their products can do, shouldn't lawmakers be held to the same standards? When you consider the Senate, House of Representatives, Judicial branch and Administrative branch of government, you have a few hundred people making decisions that effect several million people, so the responsibility for their actions should be very great.

One of the Rights( and Duties) that US citizens have is to hold their elected representatives responsible for their actions, but we have not doing our part as citizens for many years. We have the Right of Recall, and it should be something all elected officials have in the back of their minds that could happen to them if they do something stupid, yet one of the few times I have ever heard of it being used was when Arnold became Govenor. To allow this one person to make such a sweeping decision unchecked is to turn our backs on what our nation was built on. And I'm sorry but just because she is head of the EPA is not something that should give her so much power.




TFTFY
By mattclary on 12/8/2009 11:56:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That provision is expected to cost the automakers $60B USD.


That provision is expected to cost consumers $60B USD.




What we are all missing here
By shin0bi272 on 12/9/2009 6:10:19 AM , Rating: 2
Where exactly is the clean air act in the constitution? When did that become an amendment? The supreme court has no jurisdiction when it comes to expanding laws passed by congress. It's legislating from the bench and now the EPA will give us cap instead of cap and trade. Congress has just become useless. All Obama has to do is claim that not having health insurance is a risk to your health and that he has the power to act in the "general welfare" of the American people and force everyone to have a government run health care plan.




Stalemate
By Cometer on 12/10/2009 7:45:56 AM , Rating: 2
Though I agree with the critics around here regarding by-passing congress, truth must be said. Due to large corp lobbying and partisan interests it seams like were in a never ending stalemate. Anyway people seem to have a short memory so lets clear things first. This is the EPA that the previous administration pressured so that there was no official word regarding the true magnitude of climate change. The same EPA that threat scientists with unemployment if they shared their true opinions. So lets stop being naive and think about the real problem. IF you really openly follow the climate change situation be it in the US or in other nations there are two main questions on the table. The first one is the international law abiding commitment that nations are trying to draft. And its this commitment that will shape everything else. The US as well as all other nations in the world are putting their cards on the table regarding what can be achieved. This is a global effort that no one can step back. Each nation has to offer equal commitment to the question in order for this to work as intended. The second question is an internal question. And that is "We have committed to this. How can we achieve it?"
And that's the real issue here. We see suggestions being put in the table and the opposition simply discarding them. But the opposition doesn't make any viable suggestions that can in a given time frame provide the results that are requested by the commitment. It seams like the opposition only wants to ....oppose.
I don't lean towards one or the other party. Lets face it. Their not that different. And if table were turned we could be seeing something quite similar. But frankly I think we all can agree that if one politician could, they would bypass this issue. I'm not asking people to agree or disagree on my opinion. I'm just sharing it. But I ask you to at least go to the link below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
I hope an agreement is reached by the two parties but the stalemate can't go on indefinitely. And by that I mean that if the opposition knows better than provide an actual plan that WORKS. And frankly its very irresponsible that companies use their weight to maintain the status quo when they are fully aware of the facts.
For instance lobbies like the US Chamber of Commerce. Its good to see that there are also companies trying to do the right thing
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=16430




By Nichols1986 on 12/9/2009 9:14:16 AM , Rating: 1
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,Here are the most popular, most stylish and avant-garde shoes,handbags,Tshirts, jacket,Tracksuit w ect... For details, please consult http://www.coolforsale.com Christmas sale, free shipping discounts are beautifully gift.




"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki