Red, White, & Blue Turning Green
On Monday, April 2, 2007, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the government must regulate greenhouse gases.
posted by John | 6:30 AM
Republicus
"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door." The Statue of Liberty (P.S. Please be so kind as to enter through the proper channels and in an orderly fashion)
- The Dhimmicrats
- Ka-CHING!
- Encore!
- Anglophobes
- Terror in Tinseltown
- The Agenda
- The Facts
- Our Cutesy-Wootsie Little Planet Needs To Be Mommied!
- LOL
- Chucky's Right.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
On Monday, April 2, 2007, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the government must regulate greenhouse gases.
17 Comments:
I wondered when you were going to get to this. I saw notice of it in the news, and it was reported in such a way that you would have thought it was a traffic report or part of the sports news.
When I heard it I was truly alarmed.
Now we get to sit back and watch the already bloated bureaucracy of the EPA grow yet again. They have been trying for decades to run our ranchers and farmers out of business in the name of "the people" and now they are going to get to tell the auto industry what kind of cars we must drive and what fuels we must use. That is only the beginning.
Once again the SCOTUS has literally crushed the concept of State's Rights and the free market.
James, I knew, of all people, that you would understand the significance of this.
The EPA could very well outgrow the DHS (if not join forces with it, "climate criminals" becoming the new "terrorists").
I forsee a growing between them. The odd thing about that is that it will take a strange relation between a largely left-wing organization (EPA) coming to grips with a largely right-wing group (DHS). The funny thing about bureaucracy is that the bureaucrats themselves are less interested in policy than they are their own jobs. I do not think, as you indicated, that it could become a long shot for people driving a truck on their ranch to be classified as a terrorist. Maybe we are witnessing the birth of the eco-terrorist in legal terminology.
I refer you to a related article about a guy that was not afraid to point out the facts: http://www.nysun.com/article/51681
Phelonius
Your article is riddled with opinion and inaccuracies
But here's a person I don't think you can call anti-free market ...
Mandatory limits on all U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gases would not significantly affect average economic growth rates across the country through 2025, the government says.
William K. Reilly, the commission co-chairman who headed the Environmental Protection Agency under the first President Bush, said it was an old argument that the economy could not withstand greenhouse gas reductions. He said both his commission and the EIA have now shown otherwise.
Tell it to China.
BTW, James, that's the flag of the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party.
-- I strongly suspect that using the word "Libertarian" for a socialist party is much like a communist country calling itself "Socialist" or "The People's Democratic Republic Of--".
okay-okay-okay - i'll hold it for a day, but that's it!
What do you mean, Nanc?
"Libertarian National Socialist Green Party"????
WOW talk about a mix of...something.
Boggles the mind.
Anyway, haven't been as active in the blogospere for a few days...such a crazy life.
I read about that greenhouse thing in the paper too, it actually mentioned being a slam against Bush.
All this reminds me of some words from a song my kids sing..."Now we have a world where people are confused. If you don’t believe it, go and watch the news."
Things get so spun that it makes me dizzy.
"neologizer said...
Phelonius
Your article is riddled with opinion and inaccuracies."
Well, what are they? I know this guy is not a scientist, he is a businessman that is not afraid to talk about things the way he sees them. To just say that his article is wrong is not much of a statement.
The ham-fisted way the EPA operates is no stranger to those of us that live in the west. They have tried to restrict ranchers because cattle tend to trample the ground. That, and they eat plants. All the while, they moan about how the buffalo disappeared. What the hell does the EPA think happened when thousands upon thousands of buffalo came running down across the plains? That seems to be fine with the EPA because they are not here anymore.
I am a good part Choctaw, and I am not terribly happy about the demise of the buffalo herds, but at the same time, my ranching relatives and I agree that it is hard to feed people grass, and cattle are better than that.
So perhaps you can educate me to a better understanding. Tell me how an already bloated bureaucracy like the EPA is going to serve us better by a court order to grow that organization yet again. Tell me again how the Feds in DC understand our lands better than we do, where we live, raising what we raise, and feeding a huge population of the planet.
This Reilly that you bring up is one of the designers of some of the most imposing and controlling EPA structures that this country has ever seen. I am supposed to be impressed by an apologist for the EPA? I think not.
We need to get away with foreign oil. Part of a good strategy is to get rid of many of the controls on our own oil production until we do, in fact, develop fuels of an alternative type that can supplant foreign. The EPA has been a major stumbling block for this effort, and if you look at it closely, there is a pattern of special interest groups of a political nature calling the shots for the EPA. Politicians and bureaucracies are not the ones that run the machines and raise to food that we eat or the fuels that keep out lights on. Every time you go to the pump and fill up your car or go to the supermarket and buy 'organic vegetables,' you have to keep in mind that a large part of the expenses have been placed there by federally mandated taxes and restrictions.
I'm not saying the EPA is the answer. But there is one thing that certainly isn't and that is the denial of the problem. The point is there is plenty that can be done that won't be economically disruptive but even that's not occuring.
Btw
Since you seem to have western ranching concerns in mind, do you have any idea what global warming driven climate change is coming your way(or even hitting there already)? One generally accepted consequence is increasingly frequent and severe drought in the west and midwest of the US. Have any recent droughts? how will that effect business?
The southwest has had droughts since the beginning of time.
The last big one was known as "The Dustbowl." I do not think that that was the result of any kind of global warming, but at the same time, the factors behind global warming are very much up to debate. It is certainly possible that some of the same factors present then are present now.
I am curious about the statement about "denial." Nobody is denying that climate change is happening. And I also appreciate the fact that you are also not sure that the EPA is a great answer.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that we go ahead and begin to deny average people the means to make a good living and feed not just our nation, but a healthy chunk of the world's population. My argument is that when the Earth decides on a climate change, it tends to do so regardless of what life-forms are on the planet. If we decide to cripple our food production in the meantime, I cannot forsee that it will help anyone in the long run.
Actually, an uptick in temperatures will be great for the food supply (more temperate climates, longer growing seasons, and, of course, more CO2...). The Global Grilling community admit that, but then doom it with "At first, but then..."
phelonius,
I'm not sure where you got the idea that addressing global warming means denying food production but that is certainly not the case.
The issue has to be legislated the EPA simply doesn't have the means. From what I understand about the SCOTUS decision was the EPA can't deny that CO2 is a pollutant that can be regulated that's it.
Have either of you seen the latested prediction report by the IPCC of what GW will do?
• Report: Poor countries will see increased hunger and water shortages
• Scientists: Climate change will affect billions of people
• North America will see more hurricanes, floods, droughts, heat waves, wildfires
• Africa will be hardest hit, Europe will see its Alpine glaciers disappear
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/04/06/climate.report.ap/index.html
What galls me is that the concern that Africa will be hit the hardest is belied by the efforts to deny them energy production capacities!
Post a Comment
<< Home