Excerpts from Reuters story: EPA C02 endangerment finding to White House
By Tom Doggett
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has sent its final proposal on whether carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions pose a danger to human health and welfare to the White House for review, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told Reuters on Monday.
The EPA’s final finding, if it follows the agency’s earlier assessment and is approved by the Office of Management and Budget, would allow the EPA to issue rules later to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, even if Congress fails to pass legislation to cut U.S. emissions of the heat-trapping gases that contribute to global warming.
…
She said the OMB has up to 90 days to review the proposal, but the EPA would like a quicker timetable.
“We’ve briefed them a couple of times. So we’re hoping for an expedited review,” Jackson said.
Along with its final endangerment finding, the EPA also sent to OMB the agency’s final finding on whether cars and trucks “cause or contribute to that pollution,” Jackson said.
…
She said the EPA received more than 300,000 comments on its initial proposed public health endangerment and vehicle pollution findings that were issued last April.
Complete story here
Lucy Skywalker says:
I think you are too swept up in mythmaking.
(some) Corporations have discovered that they can manipulate the greens to help them earn more money. Think of companies with expiring patents that can help shift spending towards newer, recently patented products with the help of green outrage and activism.
Maybe we’re going about this the wrong way. Write your Senators and Congressmen to get the EPA to apply the Clean Air Act to CO2 exactly as written. Don’t allow the additional CO2 generation being used by the EPA. Maybe everyone will come to their senses if the pain gets sufficiently extreme?
Richard deSousa (13:39:34) :
Who the hell is running the country? Our elected members of Congress, Senate and the president or a bunch of bureaucrats??
I vote for the president and a bunch of bureaucrats!
China is completing coal fired power plants at a rate faster than 1 per week, with no end in sight. China is converting American dollars into coal deposits as fast as it can. Chinese leaders say that China will work with the world to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Oh, those inscrutable Chinese.
The EPA with it’s $8 Billion budget and 17000 employees is perpetrating fraud and deceit upon the American public.
Having been taken over by agend driven extremists and fools we are witnessing extraordinary official malfeascence on a grand scale.
http://blog.epa.gov/administrator/bio/
While we are assessing blame …
let’s not forget the travesty of jurisprudence that occurred when the SCOTUS ruled that CO2 is a “pollutant.”
Richard Sharpe (19:25:42) : …(some) Corporations have discovered that they can manipulate the greens to help them earn more money…
and I completely agree with what you say there… for instance Al Gore’s directorship in, I forget which oil company, but it had a particularly bad human rights record…
Breathing pure Oxygen under high pressure will cause acute Oxygen poisoning. Therefore Oxygen should be added to the list of polutants.
Impact of the respiration of ornamental flowers on the composition of the atmosphere in hospital
http://www.springerlink.com/content/j2x1p2434x732438/
Summary Ornamental flowers were sampled in hospital wards and their respiration rates measured. We calulated the maximum possible contribution of the flowers to the CO2 and O2 content of the ward air, during an eight hour night. Only 1.6% of the CO2 increment in the ward air during the night (estimated to increase under most unfavourable conditions from 0.03 to 0.37% v.v.) was estimated to result from the presence of the flowers. The depletion of oxygen due to the flowers was calculated to be likewise negligible. Actual measurements of CO2 in the ward air in the early hours of the morning showed CO2 concentrations below 0.1%. It is concluded that nightly removal of ornamental flowers is not justified by their effect on the composition of the ward atmosphere.
May I ask who voted in the last election and who for ? I know I voted for the intelligent one.
Maybe this is an opening, I read somewhere that while the Waxman/Markey travesty would not be subject to a court challenge, and EPA regulation would be.
Also, I want to thank everyone here, from a skeptic (I know a pipe load when I see or hear it) but not up on all the science.
I, and I suspect many others who do not post, read and find encouragement on this site.
And thank a higher power every gay the the Goracle did not win in 2000, otherwise we would already be immersed in the great Cap & Steal.
Once again Ayn Rand got it right – from Atlas Shrugged:
“Now you have placed modern industry, with its immense complexity
of scientific precision, back into the power of unknowable demons- the
unpredictable power of the arbitrary whims of hidden, ugly little
bureaucrats. A farmer will not invest the effort of one summer if he’s
unable to calculate his chances of a harvest. But you expect industrial
giants-who plan in terms of decades, invest in terms of generations
and undertake ninety-nine-year contracts-to continue to
function and produce, not knowing what random caprice in the skull
of what random official will descend upon them at what moment to
demolish the whole of their effort.”
Absolutely criminal.
That is the only way to describe it.
How long can they keep the lid on?
PV=NRT
Steve S. (21:51:31)
The EPA with it’s $8 Billion budget and 17000 employees is perpetrating fraud and deceit upon the American public.
Try 14 Billion Dollar Budget 2009-2010 via Stimulus Package and 10B plus moving forward after 2010. The Stimulus + new Obama Budget doubled the funding to ram this through because it is a great big hammer to beat the Senate into shape. Watch for it.
http://illiquidassets.net/?p=167
Stephen Skinner (01:19:09) :
Even more importantly, dihydrogen monoxide should be added as well. Thousands die every year from inhaling this extremely deady compound!
Bulldust (17:18:13) :
Penny Wong our climate change minister is saying skeptics live in “fantasy land”
It prompted the government to question the validity of last-minute negotiations on its carbon pollution reduction scheme, set to go before parliament next week.
Penny Wong and the Kevin Rudd are scientifically illiterate.
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspx
# 2839 counted in so far
# 6662 counted out so far
I wonder whether the EPA 300.000 comments had the same ratio for and against?
Karl Koehler sends EPA endangerment finding to White House:
Dear White House,
After careful consideration and simple application of the modicum of common sense I was born with (which is really all you need to figure this thing out), I have concluded the people running the show over at EPA are dangerous.
Richard (13:09:40) :
EPA:
step 1 – CO2 is pollution
Step 2 – CO2 is a danger
Step 3 – cars and trucks cause and contribute to that pollution, so do power plants using Coal, Petroleum and Natural Gas.
Step 4 – Shut them down, go backwards to the middle ages and US lawmakers be damned.
And 8 more Steps to go??????
Lucy Skywalker (00:52:50) :
Richard Sharpe (19:25:42) : …(some) Corporations have discovered that they can manipulate the greens to help them earn more money…
and I completely agree with what you say there… for instance Al Gore’s directorship in, I forget which oil company, but it had a particularly bad human rights record…
Read all about Algore’s work for Occidental Petroleum here:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/Columbia/Gore+Oxy.html
Chris R. said:
I don’t think EPA has ever ruled on the carcinogenicity of DDT. Ruckelshaus signed no such order.
Ruckelshaus’s order, which stopped the spraying of DDT on agricultural crops, was based on the harm the stuff does to wild and domestic animals and insects. None of the studies the order was based on have ever been contradicted.
Two DDT manufacturers sued EPA to stop the rule change. Under the Administrative Procedures Act, there must be a sound basis in the science for any such ruling. Were there no support for the rule, the courts would be required by law to overturn it.
In both cases, EPA won on summary judgment. DDT manufacturers did not bother to appeal.
Let’s be honest, they know the truth on the matter now – you would have to be the stupidest person in stupidsville to think that CO2 is driving the climate. The whole climate change mullarkey is just a means of control and a tax on one thing – existence! You exist, you emit CO2, therefore I will make you feel guilty, and then I will tax you so that you can gain absolution. Just how many $$$$$ is going to made out of all this for a select few?
anna v (09:18:09) :
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspx
# 2839 counted in so far
# 6662 counted out so far
I wonder whether the EPA 300.000 comments had the same ratio for and against?
This is disturbingly biblical.
Dr. Bones (or can I call you Indy), GREAT link. How beautiful that a site so thoroughly devoted to global warming alarmism publishes all the standard talking points, allows you to weigh in on them, and now has to face thorough embarrassment as they take a beating by nearly a 3:1 margin.
A classic case of overzealous devotees greatly overestimating their own intellect. I don’t imagine they set out to build a website proving that the so called consensus on Global Warming is hooey. No they apparently bought it hook line and sinker and likely their intent was to show what a “fringe minority” the skeptics represented. Clearly it didn’t quite work out.
THis is the hardest I’ve laughed in weeks, a fact that I made sure to share with them via their “Contact” link (which I would expect them to take down in the next 5 minutes).
On the serious side though, I like many posters here submitted rational, scientifically based arguments against this endangerment filing. And I suspect the ratio was more on par with your suggestion. But two things are for sure:
1) They’ll never tell what the ratio was (any pollster will tell you that 10000 people is a good population. The 3-1 margin in this poll roughly mirrors the results of similar polls and is probably an accurate estimate on the responses to the endangerment finding)
2) They didn’t even read 3 of them, this decision was made years ago. It just took time to bring to fruition.
Does make you want to stab your eyes out doesn’t it…?
So much CO2 is exhaled by 6 billion people in a year?