Supreme Court limits EPA global warming rules

You guys are aware that Obama has issued the least executive orders since Grover Cleveland, right?

www.washingtonpost.com...

originally posted by: kimar

You guys are aware that Obama has issued the least executive orders since Grover Cleveland, right?

www.washingtonpost.com...

It's the *impact* on Authoritarianism that counts.

Not the "quantity".

originally posted by: kimar
You guys are aware that Obama has issued the least executive orders since Grover Cleveland, right?

www.washingtonpost.com...

It's not the amount of EOs that bother me, but rather WHAT those EOs are.

A president that put's out 10,000 EOs compared to a president that puts out only 1. That really isn't an issue to me.

It becomes an issue if the single EO that the one president puts out is treated like a federal law.

That is wrong. That is NOT how our government is suppose to work.

No one person is suppose to be able to create a law that everyone has to follow. There is a very good reason for that.

a reply to: kimar

The numbers are not what is important.

The POTUS is elected to lead the country....NOT make the laws.
The Legislature are our elected voices...they are the one the American people chose to make laws.
For Obama to say he's just going to bypass Congress when he wants a law passed is plain wrong and unconstitutional:
It is not his job.

President Obama in his State of the Union Address this week will double down on his strategy of using a “pen and phone” to advance his agenda without Congress, White House senior advisor Dan Pfeiffer said Sunday.

nypost.com...

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

If this president had his way the average US household would pay $1,500 per month (average) for energy. And an average of $5.50 per gallon for gasoline.

To make insanely expensive alternative energy schemes involving many cronies of the administration seem more viable, and worthy of government loans, grants and subsidies.

As long as we have relatively cheap and abundant energy they can't push forward these potentially lucrative alternative energy agendas.

The cronies will not be pleased with this ruling.

a reply to: jimmyx

And, do tell how does adding more tax to the already taxed
to death stop "Climate Change"?

If this was not about the Wealth Redistribution Scheme ( that is really is)
the Administration would crack down on the EPA to really go after the
real polluters, like Monsantoto, Bayer, Syngenta, ...glyphosate, Round Up
that is killing the plantet, and the big oil companies.

The Agenda is blatantly obvious.

It's all a scam. Simple as. Falsified data, lies, bigger taxes, scientists on the Government payroll.

When drug companies are caught faking clinical trial data, no one is surprised anymore. When vaccine manufacturers spike their human trial samples with animal antibodies to make sure their vaccines appear to work, we all just figure that's how they do business: lying, cheating, deceiving and violating the law.

Now, in what might be the largest scientific fraud ever uncovered, NASA and the NOAA have been caught red-handed altering historical temperature data to produce a "climate change narrative" that defies reality. This finding, originally documented on the Real Science website
L

Global Warming Data FAKED!

I've seen all this before. I've seen the data and the historical records pointing out that in the medieval times it was hotter than it is now. We all know the Global Warming myth is just a big lie!

It's not Rocket Science!

We now know that historical temperature data for the continental United States were deliberately altered by NASA and NOAA scientists in a politically-motivated attempt to rewrite history and claim global warming is causing U.S. temperatures to trend upward. The data actually show that we are in a cooling trend, not a warming trend
L

Correct! We are in a cooling trend.

What's even more interesting is that even the EPA's "Heat Wave Index" data further support the notion that the U.S. was far hotter in the 1930's than it is today.

The following chart, published on the EPA.gov website (4), clearly shows modern-day heat waves are far smaller and less severe than those of the 1930's. In fact, the seemingly "extreme" heat waves of the last few years were no worse than those of the early 1900's or 1950's.

Now we conclusively know the government is lying about global warming. These people are experts at lying with bad science, hiding their deceptions behind the cover of "scientific thinking" and making outlandish claims such as saying that anyone who doesn't believe their fabricated data must also believe the Earth is flat. Remember, the people who are telling you that burning fossils fuels is causing runaway global warming are the very same people who also claim mercury in vaccines is safe to inject in unlimited quantities, toxins in GMOs are safe to eat, chemotherapy works great for cancer patients and that there's no such thing as any food or nutrient that prevents disease.

That is exactly right. The very same people orchestrating all those illegal Wars, Terrorists, Population Control and Covert Space Missions etc. The very same people (cockroaches) that are busy scurrying around hoarding all the cash and power, taxing us to hell and killing us any way they can through our food, water and healthcare!

Why should I believe anything they tell me to believe. I DON"T!!

The Biggest Liars and Government Terrorists on this planet along with their associated idiot 3 letter agencies are making a mockery of us!

originally posted by: luciddream
i want to remove the catalytic converter on my car.

It does not affect earth enviornment a bit.


Ill remove all your catalytic converter for free, give me a call! i get to keep them tho.

amusingly the emissions standards for Ontario when they started emissions testing actually allowed you to get rid of your catalytic converter, and other emission control devices (don't know if that has been changed or not). all you had to do was install a bigger engine in your vehicle than it was originally equipped with. putting in that bigger engine actually allowed you to also increase the emissions of your vehicle, to the highest, loosest standards. it was great, i put a 350 V8(replacing the 4.3l V6) in my astro van and had no problems ever passing the test, even though engine was about 10 years older (just took it out of a dead Caprice and put it into the van, and dumping the cat converter which even the caprice required), than my vehicle and was nowhere near efficient or low emissions. the only "modifications" needed were a pair of engine mount movers , a flex fan to replace the clutch fan, disabling the electric fuel pump (since it went from fuel injection, to a carburetor), and pulling the "service engine soon light", since the computer was no longer hooked up to the engine.

wonder if these new EPA global warming rules have similar loopholes built in them for those in the know to use?

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

IF they really want to do something about global warming then why not launch a "Manhattan Project" style push for new energy technology, such as fusion, and then give it to the world (the technology) to use.

Instead we get the typical federal govt approach of addressing the symptoms rather than address the root cause.

Slap a band-aid on it...yeah, that fixes everything. Hepatitis? Band-aid it...do not try to eliminate the actual disease. Polio? Band-aid it...don't try to develop a vaccine (oh...dang, too late for those band-aids).

Take a noble cause and then screw it up with ridiculous legislation and practices. HOV lanes in Dallas are a joke. Noble cause, stupidly implemented. As if the implementation wasn't stupid enough before, now you have to pay to use them.... The HOV lane concept in Dallas actually costs more, uses more energy, than we before HOV lanes were implemented. Stupid is as stupid does.

The current approach to being responsible Earth residents is tantamount to shooting oneself in the foot to reduce wear and tear on shoes.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

and what if it turns out that coal is the dirtiest fuel in the environment.

other than nuclear power it likely is the "dirtiest" power source, but then hydro does damage it it's own ways, as does wind and solar power(think solar power farms not putting cells up on your roof).

What if a life cycle analysis of coal is carried out and it turns out the cost to the environment is so great that coal should double in price. If you do not increase the cost then we are simply borrowing from future generations. It is a form of environmental protection that should in turn lead us to cleaner industrial methods.

so how do you enforce the price of coal doubling? you forget that coal doesn't just come from the ground, it can be and is made all over the world especially in poor countries. it is made from things like wood, and even coconut shells (call it the oldest "bio-fuel"). a process that adds even more to the air pollution than just burning it.

As for poorer nations craving coal it in only natural. Going through industrial growth is messy. Countries like the UK and the US have already been there. What right do we have to tell other countries they cannot unless we are willing to pay the difference.

you are making an error in saying the "poorer nations craving coal it in only natural. Going through industrial growth is messy." industry is not even the biggest user of coal in poor countries. for one thing these countries don't need to go through the messiness of the industrial revolution using coal as means for producing things like power to supply industry as the UK, US and the other advanced nations did because other sources of power were unknown then and had to be invented. today other sources of power ARE known and can be used in their place. i generally would agree that we don't have a right to tell those poorer what the can and can not do, but we have a duty to at least inform them of other ways, if not actually help them out.

and lets be honest about things much of this industry goes to produce items for the more advanced country's consumption. those companies that outsource (stores like wal-mart, target, sears etc, automotive manufacturers, whatever) these industries should be the ones responsible for upgrading their supplier's industry. they should be given a choice. in order to do business in these more advanced nations they can either produce their goods in those countries following their emissions/pollution standards, or if they choose produce those items in other nations, but still be held to those emission/pollution/environmental standards of the country(s), they will sell those goods in. including such things as electricity production that those companies use, and the emissions/pollution/environmental in gathering/growing/manufacturing materials they will use to produce those goods. in fact any and all imported goods at all should have to follow that set of standards, be they companies based in those richer nations, or even companies that are based in those poorer nations that wish to sell their products in those richer nations. before something can be imported they must first PROVE (and their claims researched and inspected both before acceptance and randomly thereafter) that those standards of the country they are imported into have been followed at each step of the manufacturing process.

yet even with this it would not solve the issue it would just help it a bit. as i mentioned before industry is not the biggest issue for things like coal use. a large majority of PEOPLE especially among the numerous poor people in these countries are the ones relying on using coal day to day. and i am not talking about such things as to produce electricity or goods they use. plain and simple these people are reliant on coal or even burning wood and like materials for their everyday needs such as cooking and heat. much like everyone in those advanced countries before they had affordable/reliable electricity and things like natural gas etc, to use for things such as heating and cooking. as far as i can see this is the biggest problem faced when trying to cut down on emissions and air pollution, especially when talking about cities that contains MILLIONS of people with a large percentage relying on coal/wood (and in Manila for example it always seems to be coal used) use for things such as heating and cooking in their daily lives. just imagine the pollution and smog that would be created if most people in big cities like New York, L.A., Toronto, Chicago, Houston, Montreal, Philadelphia etc, instead of using electric or gas to cook and heat their homes, used coal in it's place. then think the largest city in the US is New York, but New York is listed as number 22 in the largest cities of the world with a population of 8,405,837, while Shanghai has 24,150,000, and Beijing has 21,150,000, being the two largest in the world. and isn't Beijing the city with that huge smog problem we keep hearing about? a city that many people would be reliant for coal for cooking and heating their homes. or lets look at Manila with a population of 11,855,975, a city i know has a large percentage that use coal to cook (heating not so much needed). a city where soot is everywhere, where even in house house fans and aircon filters need to be cleaned every week or two because of the soot in the air. where even after a couple hours without doing work i wash my hands and see BLACKNESS in the water as i rinse them. where there is a high amount of respiratory issues in the population due to the smog. smog that in a large part is due to all the coal use by individuals for their daily needs.

the thing is how do you fix this? electricity is expensive (and you even pay a surcharge to offset stolen electricity as it is), NPG is expensive, a stove is expensive and a lot of homes the poor live in have no room for a stove (think the inside of a minivan or smaller for a family size house, not to mention being made of scrap and many times a "house" or three built on top of each other) since they cook outside (and people i know borrowed a stove for a special event, and being outside someone stole it, not to mention electricity and water do not mix and it rains a lot). while coal is CHEAP and abundant, and the small clay or metal coal burners they use are both cheap and small, (not something people normally bother stealing). increasing the cost of coal would not be any help to these people, that is if you could even think to control the cost of it since they can just make their own, as a lot do for sale to others now.

in the end this arbitrary law that the President wrote into existence, can't and will not do much of anything since a large portion of things like CO2 and other greenhouse gases are created by the many poor people outside of the US.

city size stats from
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

I keep seeing where yourself and others in this thread continue to harp on and on about how Obama has ignored and/or walked all over the Constitution by issuing his executive order to limit CO2 emissions, but I fail to see anything in the SCOTUS decision or the source article that would support that position. As a matter of fact, it would seem that quite the opposite is true.

Where in the SCOTUS ruling did it state that Obama had violated the Constitution?

What is it about this statement that you don't seem to be able to understand?

Scalia, writing for the court, said "EPA is getting almost everything it wanted in this case." Scalia said the agency wanted to regulate 86 percent of all greenhouse gases emitted from plants nationwide. The agency will be able to regulate 83 percent of the emissions under the ruling, Scalia said.

If anything, it would appear that the EPA and the Obama administration came out on top of this challenge and IMO, rightly so.

This is really comical! Fox News and "you people" who follow and/or worship their "fair & balanced" reporting, don't even have the ability to recognize when you have lost a fight.

Reminds me of the guy who gets his ass thoroughly whipped in a fight and then brushes it off by stating something like; "If you think I look bad, you should see the other guy."

Can't wait to see the right wing interpretation of the Hobby Lobby ruling when it comes out.

It's all a scam. Simple as.

Yeah it is a SCAM.

The US government can't win the war on terror.

The US government can't win the war of drugs.

The US government can't win the war on poverty.

The US government can't even secure our southern border.

Hell the government can't even silence the opposition to what is blatant totalitarianism.

And some people expect them to 'save the planet' ?

LOL.

You gotta be kidding me.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: xuenchen

The CO2 hoax is the issue and mostly is about money, not danger from "Pollution".

The CO2 myth is very similar to the tobacco myths that tobacco is harmless. It is industry and corporatism you are up against and their lies you are regurgitating

Quoting for truth.

How quickly the contrary will swallow "science" that supports their contrary nature is STAGGERING.

Guess DDT wasn't hurting anyone and Rachel Carson was wrong... despite history's proof of her being right?

Derek

originally posted by: kimar
You guys are aware that Obama has issued the least executive orders since Grover Cleveland, right?

www.washingtonpost.com...

So if the next President only issued one EO and it was to make all non-whites slaves then we should not have a problem because he is not issuing many EO?

Or is it not how many are issued, but what is issued that counts?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

See...that doesn't work because the hypothetical you described would be breaking the law. There's no law saying that Obama can't write his EPA EO. There's no law saying that the EPA can't create these rules and regulations. In fact, the clean air act specifically states the EPA can do exactly as Obama is directing them to.

Your example is a bad example.

originally posted by: neo96

It's all a scam. Simple as.

Yeah it is a SCAM.

The US government can't win the war on terror.

The US government can't win the war of drugs.

The US government can't win the war on poverty.

The US government can't even secure our southern border.

Hell the government can't even silence the opposition to what is blatant totalitarianism.

The US can't win the war on terror? That's because they created it to be unwinnable! Hell they created the War On Terror in the first place!

The US can't win the war on drugs? Again the CIA is doing it's best to take the drugs into the US hence their nickname the Cocaine Import Agency. And the fact of the US cultivating the Afghanistan Opium crops. Part of the reason why they invaded!

With all their imperial laws and the Draconian measures on the people that is why there is poverty. They could stop poverty but they would rather spend money on bombs and Wars!

They don't want the Souther Border secured. They are preparing for their creation of the American Union. Mexico, America and Canada together!

And the US Government is Totalitarian!

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

The POTUS is elected to lead the country....NOT make the laws.

Yes he is. It's the presidents job to sign bills into law so he is making the laws. How could you not know this?