EPA CO2 comment deadline for cars and light trucks fast approaching – get your comments in now

So, if the temperature is expected to rise by 6 degrees by 2100, this plan will reduce it to 5.984 C degrees. Well, halleluiah. We are saved.
Are you sure this isn’t April 1st?

AGW has never been about science. The EPA, the New Zeland and Australian Governments and soon our own (and the UN) are just using it as a club to drive the proles. Once cap & trade and Copenhagen are passed, we’ll hear as much about AGW as we’re now hearing about the ozone hole. Al Gore is already beginning his new crusade.

I’m sorry, but I have no more faith in our government. (lower case intentional) They were told not to pass a lot of this stuff by resounding numbers of constituents, but they pass it anyway. They don’t care, they don’t listen, they don’t represent me or my family. All I can do now is to wish them great amounts of ill will and to rejoice in any misfortune that visits them.
I guess that makes me a bad person.
So be it.

DONE:
Attn: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472
RE: Proposed Rulemaking to Establish Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is not justified in regulating carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles. These regulations will only increase the cost of our cars, harm our economy, and limit our transportation options. We need efficient, affordable transportation to rebuild our economy and create American jobs.
DUE TO THE RECENT RELEASE OF EMAILS AND OTHER DATA FROM THE “Climatic Research Institute at the University of East Anglia” which has direct influence over the IPCC, this proposed rulemaking as well as any others related to Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards must be halted until an independent review of any Climate Temperature increase due to CO2 has been Scientifically Verified and all data for this determination has been made public, along with the computer model used!
According to the proposed regulations, EPA wants to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from cars and trucks, “because of the critical need to address global climate change.” (74 Fed. Reg. 49454).This regulation does not achieve EPA’s stated goal because, according to EPA data, it does not reduce global warming or sea level rise in a meaningful way. The regulation states that the carbon dioxide reductions “are projected to reduce global mean temperature by approximately 0.007–0.016°C by 2100, and global mean sea level rise is projected to be reduced by approximately 0.06–0.15 cm by 2100.”
To be clear, EPA is proposing to increase the price of automobiles by $1,100 per car (74 Fed. Reg. 49460) in exchange for (according to EPA) a global temperature decrease of 16 thousandths of a degree Celsius in 90 years. Also, according to EPA, sea level won’t rise by an extra 1.5 millimeters. These tiny amounts are so inconsequential that they will not affect global climate at all nor will they affect “public health and welfare” (See Clean Air Act Sec. 202).
The proposed regulations will harm our economy. A few years ago, the National Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimated that increasing fuel economy standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2020 would cost the car companies $114 billion. (See Detroit News, “Fuel Plan Would Cost Big Three” (March 1, 2007). Inexplicably, today NHTSA claims that achieving the 35 miles per gallon fleetwide standard by 2016, four years earlier, would cost only $60 billion. (75 Fed. Reg. 49479). This change from NHTSA is not credible. The cost of technology-forcing regulations do not decrease by half as a result of companies only having half the time to comply with the regulations.
EPA and NHTSA’s plan will increase costs for car companies and further reduce auto company jobs. Higher priced cars and trucks will make life more difficult for American families who need affordable transportation options.
To make matters worse, these regulations would start a regulatory cascade. EPA would start regulating emissions from millions of sources, including large buildings, churches, sports arenas, office buildings, farms, schools, hospitals—you name it. EPA will be forced to regulate greenhouse gases with many sections of the Clean Air Act, including sections 108, 111, and 112. This will further harm our economy, reduce American jobs, and worsen our employment situation. NHTSA already has the ability to regulate fuel economy without EPA further harming the economy.
Lastly, we care about our families’ safety as much as the Secret Service cares about the President’s safety. There is a clear correlation between size and weight of a vehicle and its safety. That is why the President’s limo only gets a reported 8 mpg, not 35 mpg. The Secret Service should not have to cut corners in keeping the President safe, just as we should not have to cut corners to keep our families safe.
EPA should not regulate carbon dioxide or greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. These regulations will make our high unemployment even worse. It does not make sense for EPA to reduce American jobs, increase the price of cars and trucks, and make America less economically competitive in exchange for an immeasurable and meaningless reduction in global temperature.

[snip – policy – using WUWT to push an unrelated website/product]

Huffington post is putting some stuff up on Climategte. Will CNN be next?

Last chance for Australians to reject massive new taxes.
Rudd Attempts to Bribe Carbon “Polluters” to Get Law Passed
The Australian government has made a last ditch effort to win over opposition parliamentarians to its proposed carbon emissions trading laws after agreeing to at least double compensation to the coal and electricity generation sectors.
The latest amendments, which must win support from the opposition Liberal party if the government is to have its law passed by the country’s upper house senate later this week, follows an earlier decision to exclude the agricultural sector from its planned emissions trading scheme.
Under the changes, assistance to the coal industry will double to A$1.5bn (US$1.4bn), while power generators, which chiefly burn brown coal, will be awarded A$7.3bn worth of free permits over 10 years. More than A$1bn has also been offered to assist manufacturing and mining businesses handle higher electricity prices.
Kevin Rudd, Australia’s prime minister, wants the scheme passed into law before the Copenhagen climate change summit next month. Mr Rudd is keen to take a leadership role at the summit and was last month asked by Lars Lokke Rasmussen, Danish prime minister, to serve as a ”friend” of the chair, along with Mexico and the United Nations.
However, Mr Rudd’s watered down emissions trading scheme has been attacked by Australia’s Green party because it does not go far enough, while the National party has vowed to reject the legislation outright arguing it imposed a massive tax on Australian business and community at a time when other countries had yet to rule on their schemes.
The issue has also been divisive for Malcolm Turnbull’s Liberal party, which holds the key for the government’s plans to have the scheme passed. Mr Turnbull, a former environment minister in the previous Australian government, has had to stare down climate sceptics from within his own party amid threats to his own leadership.
The Liberal shadow ministry is thought to back the government’s amendments to at least double compensation payments to the coal and power generating industries but Mr Turnbull is yet to secure support from the wider party room.
The Greens on Tuesday rejected the government’s amendments, saying the proposed legislation was “worse than useless”. “There is absolutely no way we will be voting for a scheme like that,” a Greens spokesperson said. “The Greens oppose the CPRS [carbon pollution reduction scheme] as it stands not because it is too weak but because it will actually point Australia in the wrong direction with no prospect of turning it around in the 2015 time frame within which emissions must peak. “This is why we say it is not just a failure, but it locks in failure,” the Greens said.
However, Mr Rudd urged parliamentarians to back the amended scheme. A failure to reach agreement would be to ”roll the dice” with the future of Australia’s children, Mr Rudd said. ”Act for the future, not for the past. Act for your children. Act for your grandchildren,” he said. “Failing to act today is the riskiest course of action available to the parliament.