From the Emails for Friday 052209
Hey folks,
I have a lot to talk about to say the least. I take two days off, and all hell breaks loose news wise. I'm not kidding. I have three days worth of stuff to go over in just a few hours on the Big Sunday Edition, I KNOW I will not get to all of it. What a past couple of days. Cap and Trade is one of the things we will be talking about, both today and in the days to come.
It's Friday! Happy Friday to you. Being that it is Friday, it's time to go to the Emails. This one was sent to me by Bill Miller, U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Here it is.
EPA Nominee Suggests New CO2 Rules May Expose Small Emitters
May 20, 2009
The Wall Street Journal
Ian Talley
WASHINGTON -- New federal greenhouse gas emission regulation could expose a raft of smaller emitters to litigation, a nominee for a key post in the Environmental Protection Agency told lawmakers Thursday.
The potential for smaller emitters to be regulated under the Clean Air Act is one reason why business groups warn that EPA regulation of greenhouse gases could create a cascade of legal and regulatory challenges across a much broader array of sectors. The Obama administration has said that isn't their intent.
Regina McCarthy, nominated to be EPA's Director of Air and Radiation, told lawmakers that even while the government has flexibility in setting the threshold of emitting facilities to be regulated, she acknowledges the risk of lawsuits to challenge those levels for smaller emitters. Ms. McCarthy's office is responsible for drafting federal emission rules.
Sen. John Barrasso (R., Wyo.) has put a hold on Ms. McCarthy's nomination in part because of her responses on the greenhouse gas issue.
Under the Obama administration, the EPA is moving forward to declare greenhouse gas emissions a danger to public health and welfare, which will trigger new rules once finalized. The EPA says that only around 13,000 of the largest emitters, such as refiners, smelters and cement plants would likely be regulated.
Which is the point folks. That is the whole reason that the OBAMA controlled EPA is doing this. This is it all together. Remember that letter I posted from the White House Legal Counsel? They admit that there is no real Science involved in this. That it is all politically motivated.
Many legal experts say that based on clear Clean Air Act statutes, however, regulations could be applied to any facility that emits more than 100-250 tons a year, including hospitals, schools and farms. Taken in aggregate, farm animals are major greenhouse gas sources because of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from flatulence, belching and manure. Buildings often emit greenhouse gases from internal heating or cooling units.
Got news for you. PEOPLE do the same thing. This is one of the main stupidities of this. CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It is a necessary byproduct.
"It is a myth . . . EPA will regulate cows, Dunkin Donuts, Pizza Huts, your lawnmower and baby bottles," EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said earlier this year, dismissing concerns raised by groups such as the Chamber and the National Association of Manufacturers.
But in responses to a senator's questioning, Ms. McCarthy acknowledged that legal suits could be brought against small emitters.
No. Well, yeah, but NO. Lawsuits can and should be brought against YOU. The EPA, and the Federal Government. First, PROOF, Scientific proof that CO2 is a pollutant to begin with would be nice, but lets say it is. Now you go after say Wal-Mart, or Chevron, ETC. yet you do not go after Mom and Pop, Dunkin Donuts, ETC. What is right for one is right for all. You can not pick and chose who to go after. That would be like me saying three people mugged old ladies. I'm only going to prosecute the one that has the most. I will not bother the other two. They are poor and can not help it. Besides, give me a second, I'll find a way to link Bush to them.
Asked how she would protect smaller sources against suits, Ms. McCarthy said she would talk with the litigants: "I will request that I be informed if any such notice is filed with regards to a small source, and I will follow-up with the potential litigants."
What does that even mean? Did she just say, "The EPA and the Federal Government will PROTECT small polluters?" Or that she will ignore the laws that she is in charge of enforcing? Sure did sound like it.
Bill Kovacs, the head of environment and regulatory affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said, "There's no way she can talk to the litigants and control them." By the Chamber's estimate, there are 1.5 million facilities -- such as large office buildings that have their own boilers -- that produce over the 250-ton limit.
Pointless and magic number. 250-ton limit? Says who? Why? What does that 251 Ton do that the others do not do?
Kassie Siegel, director of the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute, says her group is prepared to sue for regulation of smaller emitters if the EPA stops at simply large emitters.
Exactly. You see folks, the dirty little secrete to this scam is that they do not care. They do not want to go after smaller polluters for one reason. THEY CAN NOT PAY! There is nothing in it for them. But the big ones? Lots of money to "Spread Around." Get the point?
LINK - U.S. Chamber of Commerce
OK. Time for me to get busy. If you have never stopped by for the Big Sunday Edition, you want to this Week. Believe me, it will be JAM PACKED. See you then.
Peter
Hey folks,
I have a lot to talk about to say the least. I take two days off, and all hell breaks loose news wise. I'm not kidding. I have three days worth of stuff to go over in just a few hours on the Big Sunday Edition, I KNOW I will not get to all of it. What a past couple of days. Cap and Trade is one of the things we will be talking about, both today and in the days to come.
It's Friday! Happy Friday to you. Being that it is Friday, it's time to go to the Emails. This one was sent to me by Bill Miller, U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Here it is.EPA Nominee Suggests New CO2 Rules May Expose Small Emitters
May 20, 2009
The Wall Street Journal
Ian Talley
WASHINGTON -- New federal greenhouse gas emission regulation could expose a raft of smaller emitters to litigation, a nominee for a key post in the Environmental Protection Agency told lawmakers Thursday.
The potential for smaller emitters to be regulated under the Clean Air Act is one reason why business groups warn that EPA regulation of greenhouse gases could create a cascade of legal and regulatory challenges across a much broader array of sectors. The Obama administration has said that isn't their intent.
Regina McCarthy, nominated to be EPA's Director of Air and Radiation, told lawmakers that even while the government has flexibility in setting the threshold of emitting facilities to be regulated, she acknowledges the risk of lawsuits to challenge those levels for smaller emitters. Ms. McCarthy's office is responsible for drafting federal emission rules.
Sen. John Barrasso (R., Wyo.) has put a hold on Ms. McCarthy's nomination in part because of her responses on the greenhouse gas issue.
Under the Obama administration, the EPA is moving forward to declare greenhouse gas emissions a danger to public health and welfare, which will trigger new rules once finalized. The EPA says that only around 13,000 of the largest emitters, such as refiners, smelters and cement plants would likely be regulated.
Which is the point folks. That is the whole reason that the OBAMA controlled EPA is doing this. This is it all together. Remember that letter I posted from the White House Legal Counsel? They admit that there is no real Science involved in this. That it is all politically motivated.
Many legal experts say that based on clear Clean Air Act statutes, however, regulations could be applied to any facility that emits more than 100-250 tons a year, including hospitals, schools and farms. Taken in aggregate, farm animals are major greenhouse gas sources because of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from flatulence, belching and manure. Buildings often emit greenhouse gases from internal heating or cooling units.
Got news for you. PEOPLE do the same thing. This is one of the main stupidities of this. CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It is a necessary byproduct.
"It is a myth . . . EPA will regulate cows, Dunkin Donuts, Pizza Huts, your lawnmower and baby bottles," EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said earlier this year, dismissing concerns raised by groups such as the Chamber and the National Association of Manufacturers.
But in responses to a senator's questioning, Ms. McCarthy acknowledged that legal suits could be brought against small emitters.
No. Well, yeah, but NO. Lawsuits can and should be brought against YOU. The EPA, and the Federal Government. First, PROOF, Scientific proof that CO2 is a pollutant to begin with would be nice, but lets say it is. Now you go after say Wal-Mart, or Chevron, ETC. yet you do not go after Mom and Pop, Dunkin Donuts, ETC. What is right for one is right for all. You can not pick and chose who to go after. That would be like me saying three people mugged old ladies. I'm only going to prosecute the one that has the most. I will not bother the other two. They are poor and can not help it. Besides, give me a second, I'll find a way to link Bush to them.
Asked how she would protect smaller sources against suits, Ms. McCarthy said she would talk with the litigants: "I will request that I be informed if any such notice is filed with regards to a small source, and I will follow-up with the potential litigants."
What does that even mean? Did she just say, "The EPA and the Federal Government will PROTECT small polluters?" Or that she will ignore the laws that she is in charge of enforcing? Sure did sound like it.
Bill Kovacs, the head of environment and regulatory affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said, "There's no way she can talk to the litigants and control them." By the Chamber's estimate, there are 1.5 million facilities -- such as large office buildings that have their own boilers -- that produce over the 250-ton limit.
Pointless and magic number. 250-ton limit? Says who? Why? What does that 251 Ton do that the others do not do?
Kassie Siegel, director of the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute, says her group is prepared to sue for regulation of smaller emitters if the EPA stops at simply large emitters.
Exactly. You see folks, the dirty little secrete to this scam is that they do not care. They do not want to go after smaller polluters for one reason. THEY CAN NOT PAY! There is nothing in it for them. But the big ones? Lots of money to "Spread Around." Get the point?
LINK - U.S. Chamber of Commerce
OK. Time for me to get busy. If you have never stopped by for the Big Sunday Edition, you want to this Week. Believe me, it will be JAM PACKED. See you then.
Peter
Note: "From The Emails" is a weekly segment in the Friday edition of the OPNtalk Blog. If you care to send in News Articles, Comments, Stories, or anything else you may wish to share, please feel free to send it to opntalk@aim.com As always, you never know what you are going to see here.
No comments:
Post a Comment