Thread: E.P.A. Expected to Regulate Carbon Dioxide

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/19/sc...l?pagewanted=1

"...under the clean air law any source emitting more than 250 tons of a declared pollutant would be subject to regulation..."

Guess we'll need to hold our breath? I did a rough calculation and the total population of the US emits around 459,000 tons of C02 per year.

Or maybe we'll have odd and even breathing days?

Oh yeah, no more farting either. wooohooo!



No.....really.....


Scott

Originally Posted by honedright

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/19/sc...l?pagewanted=1

"...under the clean air law any source emitting more than 250 tons of a declared pollutant would be subject to regulation..."

Guess we'll need to hold our breath? I did a rough calculation and the total population of the US emits around 459,000 tons of C02 per year.

Or maybe we'll have odd and even breathing days?

Oh yeah, no more farting either.



Aw come on...I'm just JOKING!



Scott

I have noticed an interesting trend in our government! every new bill or executive order leaves the real possibility for a tyranny or dictatorship to displace our constitution. Not that we haven't already been moving this way but the pace has quickened a bit. This is just another example!

also don't get me started on recycling... if you want my view just look up penn and teller recycling in google...

Maybe this is just a ploy to justify another tax based on our own individual "emission" levels?

Yeah! Ha ha ha! No more farting!!!

There's nothing better than intentional misprepresentation as a tool to forward a cynical agenda.

Cause, you know, the intention of the law is SURELY to regulate the biological function of every individual American, rather than, as the article states, to encourage the E.P.A. to investigate the validity of claims that CO2 is a pollutant that should be regulated or not.

You know, there are times when I think that people really want to be ignorant...

Originally Posted by JimR

Yeah! Ha ha ha! No more farting!!!

There's nothing better than intentional misprepresentation as a tool to forward a cynical agenda.

Cause, you know, the intention of the law is SURELY to regulate the biological function of every individual American, rather than, as the article states, to encourage the E.P.A. to investigate the validity of claims that CO2 is a pollutant that should be regulated or not.

You know, there are times when I think that people really want to be ignorant...

Aw come on Jim...

But maybe I am a little cynical. Second hand cigarette smoke has been classified as an air pollutant and now, in many cities, smoking is regulated by law.

I don't mind investigations to validate claims. It's how that information is eventually used that bothers me.

Scott

Originally Posted by honedright

Aw come on Jim...

But maybe I am a little cynical. Second hand cigarette smoke has been classified as an air pollutant and now, in many cities, smoking is regulated by law.

I don't mind investigations to validate claims. It's how that information is eventually used that bothers me.

Scott

I'm sorry Scott,but I'm getting tired of people saying that the government should stop regulating. Whenever the governemtn tries to stop regulating, and "let the market decide", we end up getting royally screwed. Do I trust the governmet? Not really. Do I trust "the Market"? Oh hell no. I'm TERRIFIED of the market. I think "the market" would kill babies and sell the meat if there was a buck to be made in it. So as far as pollution is concerned, if the science supports the release of CO2 by industry and automobiles as a risk to health and the environment, then by all means REGULATE IT. Cause mate, if the government does nothing, no one else will.

Not sure if that really follows Jim. Maybe not in the short term, but the government is us (at least over here). Prohibition, 55 mph speed limit, etc.

Originally Posted by Quick

Not sure if that really follows Jim. Maybe not in the short term, but the government is us (at least over here). Prohibition, 55 mph speed limit, etc.

What does Prohibition, 55 mph speed limit, etc. have to do with the regulation of harmful pollution?

Cries that the government over-regulates are usually followed by the claims that the "free market" (a reification if I ever heard one) will regulate itself.

If, as it will undoubtedly turn out, CO2 is found to be a harmful pollutant in the massive qualities produced by industry, then the government's efforts to reduce that will be written off as inappropriate, intrusive and oppressive--no matter what is done. People will claim that the government is overprotective and that "we the people" can take care of ourselves, while a few massive corporations watch the world burn and count the profits.

If, as you state, "the government is us", then why grouse and complain when the we try to do something good?

I wasn't commenting on CO2 being bad or not or whether regulating CO2 in particular is a good or bad thing.

Originally Posted by JimR

Whenever the governemtn tries to stop regulating, and "let the market decide", we end up getting royally screwed. [...] Cause mate, if the government does nothing, no one else will.

I guess I'm not sure if you're making a distinction between the people and business when you refer to the "market". I assumed you weren't. The government regulates in the short term. If it's unpopular, either specifically or the amount of regulation in general then government gets changed in the longer term.

Originally Posted by JimR

What does Prohibition, 55 mph speed limit, etc. have to do with the regulation of harmful pollution?

Those were examples of unpopular regulations (good or bad) that were sort of done away with by the populace. Maybe not good examples.

Cries that the government over-regulates are usually followed by the claims that the "free market" (a reification if I ever heard one) will regulate itself.

Depends again on whether you're making a distinction between the people and business. If you make the separation then the market does regulate itself. Immediate regulation by the government may swing over or under the popular threshold but it does follow it in the longer term.

If, as you state, "the government is us", then why grouse and complain when the we try to do something good?

This particular regulation might be good or bad and/or this level of regulation might be good or bad. People should make their opinion known.