Two Powerful Blows Against Air Pollution Controls 411
The NYTimes reports from Washington on two separate actions on Friday that, between them, have halted Bush administration clean-air initiatives in their tracks. The current administration is no favorite of environmental groups, but these groups sided with the administration in a court case brought by the utility companies. On Friday an appeals court threw out the EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule, established in 2005. The court ruled that the EPA had exceeded its authority when it established that rule, which set new requirements for major pollutants. According to the article, even the utilities were appalled to see the rule completely gutted; their objections had been narrower. Here is a podcast with the reporter (MP3) giving some background on the ruling. The second major blow to clean-air efforts came later in the day on Friday. Quoting: "...the EPA chief rejected any obligation to regulate heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide under existing law, saying that to do so would involve an 'unprecedented expansion' of the agency's authority that would have 'a profound effect on virtually every sector of the economy,' touching 'every household in the land.'... In effect, Mr. Johnson was simultaneously publishing the policy analysis of his scientific and legal experts and repudiating its conclusions."
Take my Hummer Out for a Ride (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent! That gives me a chance to they out my new RPG!
Re:Take my Hummer Out for a Ride (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Take my Hummer Out for a Ride (Score:4, Insightful)
But on a more serious note.. I feel this administration has ruined out economy and now its after our environment.
Yes... it was simply inhuman, the way the B*sh administration ruthlessly and systematically forced so many innocent people to buy Hummers and drive them around all day long.
Re:Take my Hummer Out for a Ride (Score:5, Informative)
I had my accountant do the math...
Since Hummers were classifed as light trucks in 2003 by the Bush administration, I could get a write off for my business far in excess of what I could get for a car. Having one would have saved about $12k in taxes the first 2 years I owned it.
Of course, the additional amount I would have paid in gas would have offset that figure considerably. How much, I don't know, I bike wherever I can.
M
fact check, please (Score:4, Informative)
Damn those bushies, for classifying a hummer as a light truck! It's clearly a, uh, sedan?
It isn't so much about the classification as it is about the application (with apologies to Jessee Jackson on that one). The point that many people have been trying to make is that the business tax laws don't make sense with regards to business vehicles.
For example, if you are a business owner who could just as well drive around in a sedan, why would you buy a truck? You probably wouldn't, until you talk to your accountant and find out that you get a huge tax rebate by buying the truck instead.
The result is we have florists and IT guys driving around in Hummers because it ends up being cheaper to purchase an H2 than a more reasonable sedan.
KARL-ROVE-FROM-BEYOND-THE-GRAVE
I think Mr. Rove would be surprised to hear that he is dead. While plenty of non-conservatives would place Rove as evil, few would place him as dead. Even wikipedia [wikipedia.org] seems to believe he is currently alive.
Re:Take my Hummer Out for a Ride (Score:4, Insightful)
Not the classification of it as a light truck, but allowing business write-offs for passenger vehicles and treating light truck passenger vehicles differently. That is, it costs more for a business to use a similarly priced sedan with much better mileage than get the Hummer for the same job. Here, they request that all executives getting company cars pick trucks. The company even pays gas and it's cheaper for them to put someone in an Expedition than a Volvo of the same price (even though the Volvo gets better mileage).
No one thinks that Hummers aren't light trucks. No one thinks that work trucks shouldn't be treated differently for business taxes than superfulous executive cars. However, when executives pick trucks in order to save money and drive them in a manner where a Honda Civic would have sufficed and the government is giving them financial incentives to pick the truck over the car, that's where there is a problem. Why do you think the government should be subsidizing executive Hummers for personal use and not BMWs?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes... it was simply inhuman, the way the B*sh administration ruthlessly and systematically forced so many innocent people to buy Hummers and drive them around all day long.
Good post. Does everyone forget that the 90's launched the SUV into popularity?
Re:Take my Hummer Out for a Ride (Score:4, Interesting)
Technically you're not far from the truth - Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy allowed (among other things) all business owners to purchase a $100,000 hummer h2 and write it off completely.
That could, in a sense, be considered forcing people to drive them if it was the only affordable option.
Re:Take my Hummer Out for a Ride (Score:4, Informative)
.
You do know what write-off means, right? It means you can claim the expense as a business expense, so you purchase it with pre-tax dollars. It's not like you get it free, or get a dollar for dollar tax credit; at best, you maybe save 35%, tops (if a corporation; if an LLC or sole-prop then you probably saved 15-20%).
And of course you could only write off what you actually SPENT in that year on the vehicle, meaning if you made payments for 5 years, you still had a 5 year payment plan. It was only if you bought it in one year could you deduct the expense in one lump sum.
Seems to me to be a much better way to do things - if a business pays $100,000 for business equipment, I'm all for them being able to claim the entire $100,000 amount as an expense in one year (decreasing their net income), rather than forcing them to spread the expense out over 5 or 7 tax years.
If that's forcing people to buy a Hummer, I'd like to meet those people. They still had to have the $100,000 up front to purchase it...
Re:Take my Hummer Out for a Ride (Score:5, Interesting)
But, the max write-off used to be MUCH smaller [ucsusa.org] at $25K. The point is that by upping the max to $100K, lots of doctors and lawyers went out and bought Hummers on the tax payers' dime.
If that's forcing people to buy a Hummer, I'd like to meet those people. They still had to have the $100,000 up front to purchase it...
Next time you're getting your prostate fingered, say "hi" to one of the beneficiaries. I imagine that there are a lot of upper-class professionals with $100K to drop on a car if they know it's free money come tax time. IANAAccountant, so please explain how this isn't a huge incentive/smart business move to buy what was once a lucrative luxury item that the merchant probably wanted already.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a pretty bad idea. If a business owner earns $10,000 but then turns around and reinvests all of it, US tax law says* there's no net taxable profit.
Actually, with depreciation if that owner buys capital assets of his business, he used to only get to claim $2,000 of that expense this year, and $2,000 each following year. Meaning he'd pay taxes on $8,000 this first year even though it was spent.
To me, that is insane. I am not a CPA either, but I have been a small business owner for 12 years now, and deal with this crap monthly.
ASIDE: if you want to kickstart the US - and hence the world's - economy, do two things: first cut the corporate tax rate
Re:Take my Hummer Out for a Ride (Score:5, Informative)
The point is that by upping the max to $100K, lots of doctors and lawyers went out and bought Hummers on the tax payers' dime.
There's a big difference between "tax free" and "on the tax payers' dime". If I pay you under the table for work, then we've cheated the system in that you didn't pay as much in taxes as you owed, but we didn't actively take money out of the system. I'm not defending the situation - I think it's ridiculous - but you're wrong on this part.
BTW, my wife's a doctor and our family cars are a 2003 minivan and an Oldsmobile. This fat-cat doctor meme needs to die as the unjustified expression of class envy that it is.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This meme comes about because there is a fatcat class and a starvingmouse class.
That ignores the makingendsmeet class, the kidsdogandavan class, and the doingfinethankyou class. Most professional types are in the kids/dog/van class or higher.
What's so unjustified about expressing a real socio-economic distinction?
If it actually existed as you say? Nothing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
BTW, my wife's a doctor and our family cars are a 2003 minivan and an Oldsmobile. This fat-cat doctor meme needs to die as the unjustified expression of class envy that it is.
They are a convenient example of a profession that gets a write off for trucks that has no need for trucks.
And just who are YOU to decide who "has a need for a truck" and who does not?
That's none of the Government's business; neither is it any of yours.
The writeoffs are there to stimulate the economy, which is exactly what they did. It's been proven time and again that so-called "tax breaks for the rich" actually INCREASE tax revenue, not the other way round.
Re:Take my Hummer Out for a Ride (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, this jump in tax write off caused me and my dad to spent a bunch on money on capital improvements on our family farms. (About 600 acres total). If we had been limited to the $25k per year write off, it would not have been attractive to my old man. He may have lived long enough to see the write off, or maybe not. He's to that age where if the ROI doesn't come back in some form or fashion in
Including spending about $80k on grain storage bins, 40x90 steel building to store our tractor and equipment (small tractor as we rent the farm to proper farmers, but we keep a small utility tractor mainly because my Dad is retired and the farms is his play toy. But we do use the tractor to spray for weed control along the farm roads, use the dirt scoop to even out the high and low spots, etc..)
The jump in the write off made it much more attractive to do. Especially since the old man can basically keep all the farm income shielded from taxes for a couple more years. Doesn't sound like much, but it keeps him in a lower tax bracket and that saves several thousand dollars a years.
But, in the mean time, the contractors who put up the buildings made money, the companies who made the steel buildings got sales, which kept their employees hired and paid.
We are about to go back into the watermelon business next year. One of the items on the list to buy is a pickup truck so we can haul small loads of watermelons (1 or 2 pallets) from the wearhouse we're building in the city so if an outlet is running low, we can run a fresh shipment out that day. It's not a bad summer time job while I'm in grad school, probably clear $35 - 40k.
We have a 10 year old Astro Van that could probably manage towing the trailer without a lot of problems, but we're waiting. We figure come december or January (depending if we need the write off this year), dealerships will be cutting hell of a deal on new/used pickups. (probably we'll be looking at used trucks for someone wanting to get rid of theirs at a firesale price.)
Now I'm not saying there aren't business owners out there who say, "Hey I can write this $100k off and buy a big shiny tow that says 'look at me'." There are. A lot of business owners can be arrogant as hell. Generally it's Type A's that start businesses.
But we aren't the only ones. I know a lot of small business owners who took advantage of the new tax laws to buy new equipment that otherwise they may not have purchased. Some expanded into new areas and when they did, generally had to hire an extra person or two to keep up.
People love to point at the flashy business owner (trust me, at lot of these people don't remain in business that long if they are spending $100k on flashy toy that has no practical application what so ever) and then snicker. Mostly out of jealously it seems. Which, if you made $100k and want to buy a hummer, more power to you, uut for everyone of them, there are a lot more successful business owners who go out, use the tax advantage to exactly what it was designed for: buy equipment, expand their business, and continue to add value to the economy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
People love to point at the flashy business owner (trust me, at lot of these people don't remain in business that long if they are spending $100k on flashy toy that has no practical application what so ever) and then snicker. Mostly out of jealously it seems. Which, if you made $100k and want to buy a hummer, more power to you, uut for everyone of them, there are a lot more successful business owners who go out, use the tax advantage to exactly what it was designed for: buy equipment, expand their business, and continue to add value to the economy.
Then you miss the point. It is the government effectively *pays* a lawyer, doctor, or whomever $25,000 (very rough number, but close enough) to buy a $100,000 truck over a $100,000 car.
NO, the GP didn't miss any points at all. In fact, s/he got it exactly right, and YOU'RE the one who is missing the point.
Allowing someone to keep more of his own money is not a "benefit", and does not constitute "paying" anyone. It's HIS money, not the Government's.
Economics 101, dude. Go take a class. Please.
Re:Take my Hummer Out for a Ride (Score:5, Funny)
I don't think H2s cost $100k...more like $50k...and now....I think you can get them for less than a gallon of gas.
Re:Take my Hummer Out for a Ride (Score:4, Informative)
Don't kid yourself. This administration has encouraged waste and has laughed at pollution controls. A classic example was the recent statement by Bush at the G8 meeting in Japan.
"Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter" --Pres. George W. Bush
I am not making this up. The dickhead really said this.
Cheney has censored climate change reports and Bush has pressured the EPA to not regulate greenhouse gases. This administration isn't just ignoring the issue of climate change. It is actively working against it. I think this administration thinks that the only way to salvage the economy after its disastrous policies is to put the US economy on an equal footing with the Chinese. And the only way he thinks that he can do that is to have the same pollution controls as the Chinese.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually the Bush administtation DID give a tax break on large vehicles to make them more affordable than their actual impact on the world:
"Congress recently passed a tax bill, as proposed in President Bush's economic stimulus plan, that offers a $100,000 tax credit for business owners who purchase any vehicle weighing 6,000 pounds or more when fully loaded.
When Wizinsky's accountant told him about the credit last year, the amount was much less, at $75,000, but it was enough to encourage Wizinsky to trade i
Re:Take my Hummer Out for a Ride (Score:4, Informative)
"This Administration" is not part of the court that blocked these new regulations.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I actually don't know much about the DC Circuit, but judging (pun intended) from your comments, neither do you. Appointments aren't willy-nilly with each new administration. You appoint one when someone retires or expires or advances, for the most part. There are 3 (soon-to-be 4?) GW Bush appointees on the court.
And I didn't bother to read through it, but this may be of some value to people, if a bit dry: http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/bin/opinions/allopinions.asp [uscourts.gov].
* Sentelle - Reagan appointee
* Ginsburbg
Re:Take my Hummer Out for a Ride (Score:4, Insightful)
But on a more serious note.. I feel this administration has ruined out economy and now its after our environment.
This couldnt be more f'd up
So, let me get this straight. A BUSH ADMINISTRATION clean air initiative... meaning a BUSH plan that was GOOD for the environment BY DESIGN gets shot down by the courts and YOU BLAME THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION?
You're right! That couldn't be from f'd up!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No, you'll get modded to hell because you're a troll, and your post is flamebait of the first degree, down to your counter-moderation comment and accusation of bias. You are a bad troll at that. You don't even have your claims right, different groups. The prediction of eating each other was from overpopulation, and that was never more than a fringe belief of a bunch of Malthusian believers and not based on any hard science. The cooling trend was because of two factors, undocumented particulate effects and m
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Take my Hummer Out for a Ride (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Take my Hummer Out for a Ride (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Take my Hummer Out for a Ride (Score:5, Funny)
Let's take a poll and treat the result as conclusive. 'Cause that's all that matters. The physical processes underway don't matter. If we can have a popularity-contest say it's not happening, then it's not. There's no place for scientists using The Scientific Method [wikipedia.org] to try to understand these physical processes... If we want hummers and cowboy hats, we can bribe the media to make the earth stop doing what it's doing. After all, everyone's entitled to their opinion, arent' they? Just because you have scientific evidence, doesn't mean you can make me or my countrymen believe it if we don't want to. Yee-haw! If I want to help destroy the climate for everyone, I'm entitled to. You do your thing, I'll do mine.. endless stream of stupdity continues..
Re:Take my Hummer Out for a Ride (Score:4, Insightful)
>The same fucktards that said - by the year 2000, folks! - we'd be eating each other to survive and predicted a global ice age during the 70s
>are the same fucktards behind global warming.
Cite please?
Re:Take my Hummer Out for a Ride (Score:5, Informative)
Common anti-environmentalist talking point, and pretty much completely made up. A single unsubstantiated claim by some reporter in the '70s was dug up and seized on as ``the opinion of every climate scientist at the time''.
A straw man, nothing more.
Re:Take my Hummer Out for a Ride (Score:5, Insightful)
"the whole CO2 warms the planet nonsense started from a paper written by a britsh climatologist (the name escapes me right now)"
Oh, well that just settles it, doesn't it?
Good on you for debunking the greenhouse effect. Your well researched post can now serve as the definitive argument against climate change as proffered by those damn hippie environmentalists. Give yourself a big gold star.
You know, you could argue against climate change, global warming, etc. But arguing against the Greenhouse effect?
Re:Take my Hummer Out for a Ride (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah and it's just a coincidence that the 11 warmest years on record have been in the last 13 years.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213101419.htm [sciencedaily.com]
Sigh head in the sand deniers may quite literally cause millions of people to die. :(
Re:Take my Hummer Out for a Ride (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, I was 20 at the time. I vividly remember the scare stories in all the newspapers.
I'm sure you do. All that means is the media did a great job blowing up a minority opinion into a global disaster scenario.
In short, there's a huge difference between a false scare perpetuated by the media and a real concern that's held by the majority of scientists. The former characterizes global cooling, the latter is true of global warming.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, for starters, looked at the number of papers published on each topic. Or the number of scientists who believe anthropogenic GW is happening. Or the IPCC report. I'm sure I could go on.
Honestly, if you can't tell the difference, you aren't trying hard enough.
OK, so we don't always have it right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh... Stop modding this informative! (Score:5, Informative)
The parent is so far off base it's not even funny. Just take a look at the website the photo of the National Geographic Magazine was located at. [wmconnolley.org.uk] (here's the page for the November, 1976 edition [wmconnolley.org.uk]). Here's a summary of the website by the way:
Re:Take my Hummer Out for a Ride (Score:5, Informative)
You can read about the history of the 1970s global cooling scare on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling [wikipedia.org]
Here's Newsweek talking about its own coverage of the issue, and quoting William Connolley (whose website you linked above):
From http://www.newsweek.com/id/72481 [newsweek.com]
And finally here's Connolley himself:
From http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ [wmconnolley.org.uk]
Re:Take my Hummer Out for a Ride (Score:4, Insightful)
You're being moderated informative, apparently due to the fact that no-one has clicked on your first link.Nowhere in that page does National Geographic predict global cooling. The headline on the diagram is 'Towards an uncertain future'. The box out next to it starts:
The graph shows two possible warmer trends one marked 'warmer?' the other marked 'cooler?'. The only bias towards cooler on the page is the note that 'we are living in one of the warmer periods of the last million years.'
Good job at completely misrepresenting the page that you link to.
Re:Take my Hummer Out for a Ride (Score:4, Insightful)
Envorcing pollution protection at the household? (Score:3, Funny)
Every American should be fitted with a government issued flatulence belt and sphincter funnel.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Envorcing pollution protection at the household (Score:4, Funny)
Sorry, the IRS is already up my ass.
Strange logic (Score:5, Interesting)
If I get it right, the EPA is allowed to be given authority to do things as long as they have no real effect? Of course the EPA is going to have a profound effect on every sector of the economy. If you curtail CO2 emissions you are basically affecting every step of production delivery and consumption of most goods. That is, after all, the gravity of the situation.
WTF is the EPA for anyway?
OTOH this is looking like an episode of Yes Minister, with the approach of overdoing a popular idea to make sure it sinks.
Re: (Score:2)
WTF is the EPA for anyway?
Putting giant domes over Springfield.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If I get it right, the EPA is allowed to be given authority to do things as long as they have no real effect? Of course the EPA is going to have a profound effect on every sector of the economy. If you curtail CO2 emissions you are basically affecting every step of production delivery and consumption of most goods. That is, after all, the gravity of the situation.
Try turning it around...
If the CIA wants its spies to freely monitor as many communications of terrorists as possible, then of course its method of eavesdropping going to have a profound impact on the private communications of most US citizens.
That is, after all, the gravity of the situation. (Whatever that's supposed to mean...)
10th amendment. EPA has no authority whatsoever. (Score:4, Insightful)
The EPA is basically meaningless. The powers not explicitly granted to the Federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states, and the people. 10th Amendment to the Constitution. Perhaps the most important Amendment in that it limits the reach of the Federals.
Unfortunately (for the better part of a century), the Congress has behaved as if there were no restrictions whatsoever on their authority. As if "anything we can dream up, we can do." This is one of those rare times that a federal court seems to understand the Fed (and it's agencies') power is limited.
And no, "regulation of interstate commerce" clause, so often abused, does not grant this authority; It does not give free reign to the Feds to do anything they wish. Practically speaking, the Framers of the Constitution would not construct a careful balance of power, then undo it all with one clause.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately (for the better part of a century), the Congress has behaved as if there were no restrictions whatsoever on their authority. As if "anything we can dream up, we can do." This is one of those rare times that a federal court seems to understand the Fed (and it's agencies') power is limited.
Exactly. Congress follows the letter of the law, not the spirit. If they think they can get away with passing a blatantly unconstitutional law, nothing stops them from trying, especially if someone with deep pockets wants the law to pass. (See: The War on Drugs, banning online gambling, the 55 MPH speed limit, etc.)
Re:10th amendment. EPA has no authority whatsoever (Score:3, Insightful)
If the interstate commerce clause can regulate my growing and selling of marijuana to my neighbor here in California, then I don't see why it can't be used to regulate CO2 emissions, which do cross state lines...
You're wrong on the 10th Amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not actively disagreeing with you, but your reading of the 10th Amendment is expressly contradictory of the way courts have read it. For most of the Modern Jurisprudential (post-Lochner) Era, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 10th Amendment has been the following:
The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States or to the people. It added nothing to the instrument as originally ratified.
United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716, 733 (1931). [findlaw.com]
Thus in effect the 10th Amendment is a nullity in terms of its scope and power. There have been attempts to revive the 10th Amendment as a restriction on the Commerce Power--some as recently at the 1970s--but the Court has been quite divided over whether it wants to do this. There's some interesting reading on the subject here [findlaw.com].
Yes, two powerful blows against pollution controls (Score:3, Insightful)
That is what everyone here claims to be, come FISA and DMCA time, right?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As correct as you may be, it seems that the 10th is only invoked whenever the ruling party doesn't like something.
Although the idea of states' rights is very much open to debate, the wording of the law should be amended to reflect the status quo that's been present ever since the end of the Civil War (remember folks, the constitution is not scripture, and was explicitly designed to be updated as needed).
For one thing, the 10th was drafted long before the sparsely-populated western states were annexed. Many
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
SURPRISE SURPRISE! The founding fathers were... SURVEY SAYS! no! no philosophical angels looking for a better way, but politicians!
limited government clauses made antifederalists happy, the "general welfare" and the "necessary and proper" clauses let federalists have the last laugh.
Re: (Score:2)
This is one of those questions that Utilitarians often have problems with.. Is it easier to inconvenience everyone a bit now or an unknown amount later?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is stating that they have power to collect taxes for just about everything, not that they have the power to do just about everything.
You're reading the Clause Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
This clause is commonly referred to as the Tax and Spend Clause and has been commonly read to give Congress the power to tax and spend for the general welfare, not to regulate for the general welfare. Thus, if Congress wanted to tax pollution for the general welfare, it could. This specific clause does not give Congress the power to regulate pollution for the general welfare. Congress has no general police power.
If you want to know more about the history and interpretation of the clause, there is some excellent reading here [findlaw.com].
Re: (Score:2)
It's a tool for politicians to be able to yap about how they "care about the environment" while at the same time accomplishing little but disrupting the economy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
EPA doing the "right" thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, I think that the EPA was right to claim that they can't regulate carbon emissions. The reasoning they stated was absolutely and 100% valid. Regulation of carbon emissions (and other heat trapping gases) is a big deal. You are talking about going from open seasons to something much more restrictive. The vast majority of companies don't even know how much they are dumping out because it is currently unregulated. The EPA regulating carbon emissions would be a very very big deal. It would have some very dramatic effects upon the price and have an effect upon the economy.
I am not against regulating such emissions, but it isn't up to a government bureaucrat to make such a significant decision. This truly is the role of elected officials. Congress needs to get up off their collective asses and decide what the law of the land should be in terms of green house gas emissions. Congress needs to decide what the balance between the economy and the environment is, and they need to be held responsible if they screw it up. The head of the EPA is absolutely correct in throwing up his hands and saying that this is for congress to sort out, not him.
Re:Strange logic (Score:5, Informative)
I work in the petroleum industry, and I'll tell you this: companies that run pipelines and tank farms are generally far more concerned with state Environment agencies. They're a lot tougher than the Feds in many areas.
Re:Strange logic (Score:5, Insightful)
uh.. duh?
If the state agencies were less stringent than the feds, they'd have a hard time justifying their budgets, wouldnt they?
Re: (Score:2)
E.P.A. = Easily Pacified Americans
Instead of bashing Americans - I know, it's so easy to do and makes you look hip and intellectual - how about bashing BRIC?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Quite so, the US is the only major country to go through an industrial revolution without the kind of pea soup smog problem which London and many other industrialized nations went through.
I sympathize for the BRIC countries, but marketing yourselves as cheaper labor with no environmental controls isn't exactly making it any easier for us in the US to win over the "this is going to cost us jobs" portion of the populace. Especially when the lion's share of the jobs being sent offshore are going to nations wit
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I had to look it up too: Brazil Russia India China [wikipedia.org]
Maybe it's a chance to redo things (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know. While I am in favor of environmental regulations, the fact that the courts threw out the entire mess might be a blessing in disguise. It will be back to the drawing board and the Bush administration will not have enough time to put new ones into effect. The regulation that the courts threw out probably was filled with loopholes that would let polluters off the hook. Maybe a new (and hopefully environmentally friendly) administration will do it correctly.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do we insist on an all or nothing answer around here? Having someone meet you in the middle is much much better than leaving it to the fates. And leaving it t
Re: (Score:2)
Nice submission (NOT) (Score:5, Informative)
(Washington, D.C. - July 11, 2008) Today EPA released an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) soliciting public input on the effects of climate change and the potential ramifications of the Clean Air Act in relation to greenhouse gas emissions.
And here [epa.gov] is the transcript of Johnson's conference call on the release.
Finally, here [epa.gov] is the (588 page PDF) document itself.
/me (Score:3, Funny)
Why weren't the vehicle ones invalidated? (Score:2)
From what I can tell from reading it, just about everything has been invalidated except for that which concerned vehicles. My opinion it should have also included vehicles.
Red Herring (Score:4, Insightful)
Judging by the utilities response, there were probably some loopholes in this act they already have plans in motion for. The Bush administration is known for making deals with energy. That's why they were shocked to have the whole thing thrown out. Most likely, the holes came down from the top, and the EPA threw in some licensing requirements at the last minute. They lucked out and got the whole thing thrown out.
There was a lot of selling of coal and natural gas companies on the East Coast in the last few years in anticipation of this act so it probably threw a wrench into the spokes of the alternate plans (nuclear). Most likely Dick Cheney and the nuclear lobby collaborated on this one. You're probably saying, "Dick Cheney?!" Well, yes. Wyoming is home to the largest deposits of uranium around. He's worked at power and energy companies for all his life. The act alone would I'm sure fuel some speculation in the Uranium markets, of which he and his family are major players.
The 15 year uranium chart [infomine.com] clearly shows this amazing run up culminating in the sell off (in late 2007). I don't think we will be hearing from any of these guys for another 10 years, because they have just pulled the biggest scam in the history of America, they have ALL the money now (and just to make sure they printed a lot of extra and gave it to themselves). Oh, and they all moved to Dubai (Halliburton is now headquartered in Dubai, and deals equally with Euros and trades on the Dubai exchange).
Re:Red Herring (Score:5, Informative)
Partially true. Halliburton's primary headquarters is located Huston, they recently opened a secondary headquarters in Dubai. This makes sense since they have several business interest there. They also have offices in Anchorage, Denver, and a number of other cities scattered through the USA.
Someone update Wikipedia (Score:2, Funny)
Unprecedented expansion indeed (Score:2)
Well, yeah. If you have the power to declare any substance whatsoever to be a pollutant, and then to heavily regulate its release, you could ruin any industry you wanted in a heartbeat.
The idea t
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
If you have the power to declare any substance whatsoever to be a pollutant, and then to heavily regulate its release.
I propose that lobbyists be declared a pollutant.
Another perspective on this bullshit.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Do you want the government to tell you when you can drive?
What temperature to set your house at?
How many kids you can have?
What you can do, see, eat, or be?
The average person will tell you that, NO...they don't want any of this. Of course, the same person will say they want OTHERS regulated. The government should come in and regulate companies, they should regulate cities! Regulate farmers, miners, whatever, as long as it doesn't mean THEY are effected.
If your AVERAGE person real
What we know about global warming (for sure) (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's what we know (for sure) about global warming:
Increases in atmospheric CO2 cause warming.
Man has been increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The Earth has been warming.
However, we cannot link any of these together in a cause and effect relationship, because the Earth has been warming long before man started to emit CO2. The last ice age (10K years ago) is still melting, and the last 1.5K year warming trend is still on the upswing. Water vapor has a more significant effect on warming, and we don't even know if more clouds increase or decrease warming. It would be a HUGE negation of science for the EPA to say that CO2 is a pollutant.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Cause and effect.
Here's what we know (for sure) about global warming:
Increases in atmospheric CO2 cause warming.
Man has been increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The Earth has been warming.
Here is something else we know about global warming.
Sun cycles cause Global Warming and cooling.
In past cycles, the CO2 in the atmosphere was at elevated levels. The elevated levels were due to warmer oceans releasing CO2 as they warm. (CO2 levels followed heating, not led it)
Our Global Warming cycle is the sa
Re:What we know about global warming (for sure) (Score:4, Informative)
Changes in the sun are not responsible [newscientist.com] for the majority of the observed global warming. They're just too small [nationalgeographic.com].
Solar forcing (11 year solar flare cycle, increase in brightness etc) is already accounted for in current climate modeling - the 2007 IPCC report put the maximum effect of solar increases at 20%, lower than previous years. Volcanism is even lower.
Solar forcing was responsible for a lot of warming in the pre-industrial age, and the science is still being looked into for other mechanisms - but at this point, at this time, man-emitted greenhouse gases are the only candidate for the vast majority of the increase in temperature. CO2 and methane from industry, fossil fuels and agriculture are having a big impact on the global climate.
What the exact impacts will be, and what we can do to mitigate them is a hot topic, but that man is responsible for the sudden and sharp increase in overal global temperature since the industrial age? That's no longer in serious dispute.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Our Global Warming cycle is the same as the Global Warmming cycle on Mars.
My theory is our greenhouse gasses are not responsible for the warming on Mars, but I have no way to prove it one way or another. I also believe that what ever is causing the Mars global warming is also impacting our global warming to a great degree.
The Mars myth [newscientist.com] was debunked a long time ago...
It isnt all about global warming. (Score:3, Insightful)
Global warming is just a part of the problem with using fossilized carbon fuels. One of the biggest problems is that it is a finite source of energy. They will run out in a not so distant future.
CO2 gases arent the only problem either. Cancerogenes and heavy metals arent fun in the long run for our children and the animals. However you look at it its about time we seriously look at other energy sources.
Re:why even try to get anything done right now (Score:5, Insightful)
Talk about some serious asshattery.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
until a zero emission vehicle is created
It's called a bicycle...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A bike isn't a complete solution was what I said but I also mention in my circumstances. I never said that bikes are worthless because they don't fit into my circumstances but you tried to make it seem like that was my in
Re: (Score:2)
The steel, rubber, and lubricants required to construct and maintain that bicycle don't just appear out of thin air.
The extra energy you expend in riding it means you have to consume more food, which in turn means more agricultural production, fertilizer, runoff, fuel for the machines, destroyed forest, etc.
No such thing as a free lunch!
Re:why even try to get anything done right now (Score:4, Funny)
Uhhhhh..... you DO realize that bicyclists exhale CO2, right?
Re: (Score:2)
ATM they can't decide whether it's a good idea to cut emissions 'when everyone else starts doing it' or 'at some point in the future'.
I'm not holding my breath.
Re: (Score:2)
And if these utility companies were so noble we'd not need the legislation in the first place!
Re:So what is the problem? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:So what is the problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, a good kick, in the standard broken-window-fallacy sense.
Not that the pollution isn't metaphorically breaking a few windows itself, but the nation's economy has better things to be doing than up and moving cities for the sake of the construction workers. It's wasteful.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how much faster dope grows in the presence of more CO2?
Re:Oh No... MORE CO2 (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you know that there's something perfectly natural that eats up CO2? They are called p-l-a-n-t-s.
Yep. And where does most of this magic happen ? In Earth's oceans. Which we're about to make a lot less hospitable for life through acidification (ironically, mostly through CO2) and overfertilization.
It almost seems as if this earth were designed in such a way that we couldn't mess it up.
We can't mess it up for life in general, but we sure as heck can mess it up for us. And, believe it or not, there are some people who might want to see mankind live and prosper for another couple of ten thousand years, at least.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The planetary temperatures are either flat or cooling down. Since its been two weeks since the last sunspot, can anyone say "Little Ice Age"?
Erm ... did you actually look at those values ? Or even plug them into Excel/Matlab/Octave/whatever and trend them (with a larger running average than 12 months) ? If not, then I suggest you do that.
You are so wrong! (Score:3, Interesting)
Erm ... did you actually look at those values ? Or even plug them into Excel/Matlab/Octave/whatever and trend them (with a larger running average than 12 months) ? If not, then I suggest you do that.
Global warming deniers generally are neither good at science nor at statistics.
Uh, did you look at the numbers? I mean, seriously. The numbers are not absolute temperature averages, they are a number that already statistically indicates above or below normal. It already factors in seasonality and all of that o
Re:Uh, where's the warming dude? (Score:4, Insightful)
Global warming deniers generally are neither good at science nor at statistics.
99.99% of the GW believers are earth worshiping religious fruitcakes that only spit off a few talking points to pretend they are hip. Seriously, do you think that aging folk tart Sheryl Crow actually can even write a computer program?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly... and the morons didn't even read the article, for if they had... they would realize the utilities have already made the changes due to a court settlement. AEP has invested over a billion dollars in retrofitting their coal fired power plants to prevent interstate pollutants.