EPA Poised to Declare CO2 a Public Danger

Hey, if Congress and the American people won't accept Obama's AGW hawkers Browner, Chu, and Holdren's mewling piety to their new religion, then he'll just create the regulations without - and against them!

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will early next week, possibly as soon as Monday, officially declare carbon dioxide a public danger, a trigger that could mean regulation for emitters across the economy, according to several people close to the matter.

Such an "endangerment" decision is necessary for the EPA to move ahead early next year with new emission standards for cars. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has said it could also mean large emitters such as power stations, cement kilns, crude-oil refineries and chemical plants would have to curb their greenhouse gas output.

The announcement would also give President Barack Obama and his climate envoy negotiating leverage at a global climate summit starting next week in Copenhagen, Denmark and increase pressure on Congress to pass a climate bill that would modify the price of polluting.

So what if the immediate effect is to drive up the costs of energy use and production? The poor don't use much, and the rich can afford it, right?

This is how you do it when you've got the sheep blindly following. Just say it, and it's true.

We saw this coming month's ago before EPA announced its rule-making proposals:


Environmental Dictatorship by Executive Decree

Hold on to your wallets. The next pronounement you'll hear is how these new draconian regs will saveyou money!

Deny ignorance.

jw

[edit on 5-12-2009 by jdub297]

reply to post by jdub297

Hold on to your wallets. The next pronounement you'll hear is how these new draconian regs will saveyou money!

Hoo-boy, are you behind the curve there... it's already been said many times. Here's a sample:

A Cap and Trade System Could Save US Families $900 a Year from May of 2009.



Does anyone remember where the phrase "less is more" originated? Was George Orwell a prophet?

TheRedneck

Four legs good, two legs baaaaaad.

I mean four legs good, two legs better.

reply to post by TheRedneck

Except, this is not legislation, debated and voted on by our "representatives." It is an executive action through the EPA that will have the same force and effect as law.

Carol Browner (formerly of Socialist International), the environmental czar, and Lisa Jackson of EPA will now force individuals and companies to do things that Congress either had the good sense NOT to, or didn't have the balls to enact as laws.

Cap and trade may or may not come, but this is here and now.

jw

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by TheRedneck

 

Except, this is not legislation, debated and voted on by our "representatives." It is an executive action through the EPA that will have the same force and effect as law.

Carol Browner (formerly of Socialist International), the environmental czar, and Lisa Jackson of EPA will now force individuals and companies to do things that Congress either had the good sense NOT to, or didn't have the balls to enact as laws.

Cap and trade may or may not come, but this is here and now.

jw

An administrative agency such as the EPA can only enforce their own regulatory codes by willful and voluntary granting of jurisdiction by the people they presume to have jurisdiction over. That is how the law works. This is how administrative agencies such as the EPA gain jurisdiction, by either conscious granting of jurisdiction by the people, or through tacit approval. In order to enjoy ones right an individual must openly and zealously declare their rights and challenge the jurisdiction of those administrative agencies that presume authority over an individual. If an individual fails to challenge this jurisdiction then it is lawfully correct to presume jurisdiction has been granted.

Co2 by definition is: "a heavy odorless colorless gas formed during respiration and by the decomposition of organic substances; absorbed from the air by plants in photosynthesis" It is, in fact, a necessary component of life on this planet and the EPA, which stands for Environmental Protection Agency, only undermines their own purpose for existence when they declare a natural and crucial gas that is very necessary to the planet a "pollutant".

Administrative agencies such as the EPA rely upon the ignorance of people in order to continually expand the scope of their jurisdiction but they are at all times servants of and accountable to the people. It is the nature of government to zealously seize power and this should be understood by the people at all times. How much power any government actually manages to obtain is a direct reflection of the people who allowed that zealous grabbing of power to happen.

I posted on another thread about how it doesn't matter what happens the EPA was going to backdoor CO2 regulations. But, what they aren't telling you is that the EPA can be taken to court and the Supreme Court can rule that the EPA does not have the jurisdiction to regulate CO2 which will happen, that is why the Admin wants to pass cap and trade because then it becomes a law and there is no recourse.

So event though the EPA is going to try to backdoor CO2 regulations it won't be long before they are taken to court and will be barred from regulating CO2 because it is necessary for life to function.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
An administrative agency such as the EPA can only enforce their own regulatory codes by willful and voluntary granting of jurisdiction by the people they presume to have jurisdiction over. That is how the law works. This is how administrative agencies such as the EPA gain jurisdiction, by either conscious granting of jurisdiction by the people, or through tacit approval. In order to enjoy ones right an individual must openly and zealously declare their rights and challenge the jurisdiction of those administrative agencies that presume authority over an individual. If an individual fails to challenge this jurisdiction then it is lawfully correct to presume jurisdiction has been granted.

You go ahead and challange their jurisdiction. I'm sure we'll enjoy seeing you on the 10 o'clock news when they send the men with guns to your house to show you how the real world works.

In theory you are 100% right, in actual reality, the men with the guns usually get what they want, the laws be damned.

[edit on 5-12-2009 by FortAnthem]

[edit on 5-12-2009 by FortAnthem]

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife

You must've missed Massachusetts v. EPA, the 2007 (5-4 decision) in which the SCotUS said EPA had to, in effect, put up or shut up on regulating greenhouse gases and auto exhaust.

The 5-to-4 decision rebuked the Bush administration, which had maintained the EPA does not have the right to regulate carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases under the Clean Air Act. The Bush administration said even if the SC ruled against them (as it did), it would NOT allow the EPA to exerccise such authority.

It was not until Obama, Browner, Chu and Holdren gave Anderson the "green light" at EPA to go forward that it did.

There is no doubt that Obama will fight over EPA's exercise of authority recognized by the SCotUS.

Too late! No need to wait for Congress, anyway. They'd been saying all along that if Congress didn't act, they (the Executive branch) would just do it themselves.

Welcome to the "Environmental Dictatorship!"
I told you this was coming:
The Anti-Industrial Coup: Environmental Dictatorship by Executive Decree

Deny ignorance.

jw

[edit on 5-12-2009 by jdub297]

reply to post by jdub297

This just in-EPA Poised to Declare Oxygen O2 a Public Danger

The comparison of the MSDS toxicity of CO2 compared to O2

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8c860fffb571.jpg[/atsimg]

What next Oxygen usage credits-pay to breathe!

No Propaganda here, move along!

S&F


DISCLAIMER-THIS IS SATIRE-WHERE THE EPA RELEASE IS NOT!

[edit on 12/5/2009 by endisnighe]

reply to post by jdub297


Thanks for that, but the thing about it is that the EPA has to have a reasonable reason to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

So yes the EPA can be taken back to court and be challenged on their reason for regulating CO2 emissions.

reply to post by FortAnthem


Actually theory is a process by which a hypothesis is either proved or disproved. If a theory is proved it becomes accepted as law. If, in theory, I am correct then it is a law and if it is a law then it is no longer just a theory. That intrusive governments are continually ignoring and blatantly disregarding laws is a tragic fact of life. Many a brave soul through out history have stood tall and proudly in the name of reason and law and paid dearly for it.

If it is your intention to dismiss the correctness of my assertion that the EPA is legally bound to a Supreme Law of the Land that holds them accountable to the people, by insisting that any challenge of jurisdiction on my part will only be met by thugs with guns and a willing and complicit media in alliance with these thugs, then that intention only serves to illustrate my earlier assertion that the power governments gain is a direct result of the people who allow the government to grab that power. Hopefully this was not your intention, and merely a concern you were reflecting.

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by jdub297

 

Thanks for that, but the thing about it is that the EPA has to have a reasonable reason to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

So yes the EPA can be taken back to court and be challenged on their reason for regulating CO2 emissions.

Too late, some more!

EPA has already announced "findings" that CO2 (and 5 other GHGs) are a danger to human health.

In April, they set up the current situation by issuing their determination that CO2 is dangerous.

Why Legislate When You Can Regulate?!

The Environmental Protection Agency has concluded that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases are a danger to public health and welfare. It is the first step to regulating pollution linked to climate change.
The EPA also will say tailpipe emissions from motor vehicles contribute to climate change. The action was prompted by a Supreme Court ruling that greenhouse gases must be regulated if found to be a human health danger.

EPA to Declare 6 Gases A Public Health Risk

You are way to behind the curve on this.

They lay the groundwork with "findings," wait 90 to 120 days for "public comment," then issue their new regulations.

Done Deal.

You saw it here first in March. And April.

Or not.

Deny ignorance.

jw

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by FortAnthem

 

If it is your intention to dismiss the correctness of my assertion that the EPA is legally bound to a Supreme Law of the Land that holds them accountable to the people, by insisting that any challenge of jurisdiction on my part will only be met by thugs with guns and a willing and complicit media in alliance with these thugs, then that intention only serves to illustrate my earlier assertion that the power governments gain is a direct result of the people who allow the government to grab that power. Hopefully this was not your intention, and merely a concern you were reflecting.

I'm not dismissing the correctness of your assertion at all. The fact that men with guns will show up to enforce this is simply the sad result of as you say "the power governments gain is a direct result of the people who allow the government to grab that power. "

The people have been allowing the govt to grab power for far too long now. It may now be too late to stop it with anything short of succession or armed insurrection.

I am not happy with the current situation at all.

reply to post by jdub297


You don't understand their "findings" can be challenged.

This is far from a done deal. As I said that is what the Obama Admin wants to pass Cap and Trade because then it becomes a Law. If the EPA could not be challenged then this would have already been done. The EPA can be challenged and subsequently denied regulating CO2 if the "findings" don't match muster.

And in light of Climategate there will be 5 judges that can push through to hear the case. The Supreme Court can overturn past decisions.

reply to post by FortAnthem


Whew! I thought as much but thought it prudent to seek clarification first. The people may be forced to rely upon an armed insurrection but long before such an event happens there are multitudes of peaceful measures to be taken before something as drastic as civil war or a bloody revolution. Velvet revolutions whereby the people rely upon the rule of law in a peaceful and reasonable manner is preferable. Thanks for your timely reply.

We have been screaming to many deaf ears about this for a while now. This is all part of the end game - this is about the creation of a one world government which President Obama will sign off on in Copenhagen in less than a week, ceding national sovereignty forever.

For complete details on all of this click on the thread link in my signature file below this post.

[edit on 5-12-2009 by factbeforefiction]

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
On what basis would you challenge EPA's finding that CO2 is a "pollutant?" Or that it needn't act to protect health?

The Court in Mass.v. EPA explicitl stated:

“under the Act’s clear terms, EPA can avoid promulgating regulations only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do.”

Massachusetts v. EPA

Who in the Obama Justice Dept. or EPA will say that?

An individual must show "standing," to bring suit, one of the issues in Mass. v. EPA. MA had standing because it was affected by (the Bush Admin.'s) EPA refusal to recognize CO2 as a danger.

Standing requires injury, causation, and the existence of a remedy. The Court found that EPA’s refusal to regulate CO2 led to “actual” and “imminent” harm to Massachusetts because of rising sea-levels. The Court also noted that EPA’s failure to dispute the existence of a causal connection between man-made greenhouse gas emissions and global warming and its refusal to regulate such emissions, at a minimum, contributes to Massachusetts’ "injuries."

What "injury" gives you standing to contest EPA's regulation of a cement plant or power plant?

The power plants and cement plants and the Bush administration litigated this very issue in the underlying case. Before a new case on the same grounds gets to the SCotUS, the power co. et al must WIN in the trial court, prevail on appeal, or achieve mandamus to the SCotUS. This will be opposed at every level by the Obama Justice dept.

It is a done deal, dude.

jw

reply to post by jdub297

Re-reading my post, I may have come across much more serious than I was... if so I apologize. And I will be serious for a moment:

They have been trying this for quite some time, building a foundation with propaganda. It works like this:

1. Global Warming was the first step, to convince people that there was a major problem. It was built on every natural disaster that could be found: crop shortages were due to temperature changes or water shortages that 'obviously' indicated a problem with the planet. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita were portrayed as an omen of things to come, a sign that ever-increasing storms and damage would wipe out people in mass numbers. Constant reminders of rising sea levels arose every time there was a flood. These tactics always turned out to be lies (there have been no continuing problems in any of these circumstances; the hurricane seasons have actually been less active then normal since Katrina/Rita), but that was quickly countered by focusing attention on the next disaster and attributing it to warnings of doom and gloom, letting the failed predictions fade into distant memory.
   
   During this phase, I kept asking "How do we know this isn't just weather fluctuations?"
   
   
2. Step 2 was to set forth several theories about what could be the cause, to institute curiosity. The 'scientists' examined the sun, the water, the air, and kept producing reports after reports that seemed to show how diligently the world's most educated were trying to resolve the 'coming threat'.
   
   During this phase, I actually was starting to get concerned the 'threat' might have been real.
   
   
3. Step 3 was to identify carbon dioxide, turning that curiosity into concern. I still remember a huge 'secret' advertising campaign from a few years back, with billboards screaming about your 'footprint' without explaining what your 'footprint' meant. That was slowly integrated into the idea of a 'carbon footprint'. It created an artificial moment of realization for the readers, when this curiosity connected with realization that this 'secret' was the thing that had been being sought after as the cause for all of the world's ills.
   
   I thought this was rather funny. I always did find humor in silly advertising campaigns.
   
   
   
4. Step 4 was to demonize the carbon dioxide through so-called 'research' in order to get people to fear it. This was perhaps the hardest thing to accomplish, because it meant going directly against elementary science. How do you turn a necessary-for-life, colorless, invisible, and normally odorless/tasteless gas into a demonic entity? But enough persistence paid off. Even things that had nothing to do with carbon dioxide were connected: cigarette smoke was said to contain carbon dioxide (it does, but in no higher quantities than any other burning of organic material) which linked it subconsciously to cancer. The term 'pollution' was used to describe carbon dioxide. Stories about catastrophic warming due to carbon dioxide were illustrated with pictures of smokestacks belching plumes of colored gases, despite the fact that carbon dioxide is invisible. Some even used reddish backgrounds to make the scene seem more dangerous and surreal.
   
   It took time, and there was considerable resistance at this point, but look at the posts here on ATS in the last weeks; it worked.
   
   This was the phase where I realized there was a scam going on. I just wasn't sure what that scam was.
   
   
5. Step 5 is to tax it indirectly to raise the prices. That is the purpose of Cap & Trade. The government must now 'sell' this solution to oo many people have realized that this was a scam all along now, and so the EPA must step in and 'regulate' this 'hazardous substance' for our own 'protection'. It has to be done by the EPA, because they can implement controls quicker than legislation can take effect, and much quicker than treaties can be negotiated. Believe it or not, these powers behind this are well aware of the legalities of treaties, in that they cannot be entered into without formal Congressional approval. The leaked emails threaten to derail the plan, so action must be taken quickly, before the public can become wise to what is happening to them.
   
   I am now sure I know the full plan.
   
   
6. Step 6 will be to make energy scarce through legal restrictions on carbon dioxide, to make the higher price seem more acceptable without making the taxation look like direct taxation. If the government were to tax energy directly, they would be the 'bad guy' in the public eye. Instead, they are proposing a 'free market solution' (which in actuality is really an artificial throttle on free commerce by use of a hidden tax) so they can not only be seen as 'innocent', but as an entity trying to help the little guy.
   
   Underestimating the cost that people will see by virtue of this step is a large part of this. So is the promise that poor people will actually save money. They have created a false hope in the mind of the public, which will come into play later, because they are actually going to be sending money in the form of 'rebates' to the poor. The bad guy simply doesn't give away free money, right?
   
   
7. Step 7 will be to exercise total control over all energy, since the utility companies will have been vilified in the minds of the public due to the high prices and seeming lack of ability to provide energy. After all, when energy producers have to cut back on the amount of power they produce in order to comply with the new regulations on carbon dioxide emissions, surely the government isn't to blame; the government is giving you money! the government said it wouldn't cause a shortage! The government is trying to stop the evil oil companies form destroying the planet we all love. No, the problem is those darn energy companies, who are obviously jacking up prices and not even using that extra money to make enough power. How do we solve this? Well, how did we 'solve' the automotive company problems? By taking control of a part of them. The insurance companies? By taking over control, stopping those wild parties and outrageous bonuses. So now we turn the energy companies into publicly (government) owned utilities, under direct control of the government.
   
   
8. Step 8 is the final move. Once government owns all energy production, government can stop all energy use if someone does not comply with whatever the government wants. Pure power over all people. 100% control.

This ends your tour into the future. We hope you enjoyed the ride, and thank you for using Redneck's Crystal Ball Service.

Please be sure to have your memory wiped on your way out.

TheRedneck

reply to post by jdub297

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife

 

On what basis would you challenge EPA's finding that CO2 is a "pollutant?" Or that it needn't act to protect health?

The Court in Mass.v. EPA explicitl stated:

“under the Act’s clear terms, EPA can avoid promulgating regulations only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do.”

Massachusetts v. EPA

Who in the Obama Justice Dept. or EPA will say that?

An individual must show "standing," to bring suit, one of the issues in Mass. v. EPA. MA had standing because it was affected by (the Bush Admin.'s) EPA refusal to recognize CO2 as a danger.

Standing requires injury, causation, and the existence of a remedy. The Court found that EPA’s refusal to regulate CO2 led to “actual” and “imminent” harm to Massachusetts because of rising sea-levels. The Court also noted that EPA’s failure to dispute the existence of a causal connection between man-made greenhouse gas emissions and global warming and its refusal to regulate such emissions, at a minimum, contributes to Massachusetts’ "injuries."

What "injury" gives you standing to contest EPA's regulation of a cement plant or power plant?

The power plants and cement plants and the Bush administration litigated this very issue in the underlying case. Before a new case on the same grounds gets to the SCotUS, the power co. et al must WIN in the trial court, prevail on appeal, or achieve mandamus to the SCotUS. This will be opposed at every level by the Obama Justice dept.

It is a done deal, dude.

jw

Only a fraction of the states actually brought upon this suit. That means the other states that were not involved in the original suit has standing. Now since Mass. decided to use the "global warming" scare and subsequent papers produced by the IPCC to "prove" their "injury" the regulation could be brought back to court on grounds that the regulation was found on insufficient science.

Such is the reason for the Congressional investigation into Climategate. When the investigation comes back as showing the research fraudulent the courts will have no choice to take the case because the case is on different grounds than the first case.

Basically the case could be (insert state not involved in original suit) ______ vs the EPA on the grounds that injury has been caused by regulation of a naturally occurring element.

It's is far from a done deal. Like I said that is why the Obama admin wants to pass cap and trade bill, because then it will be in law and there are no constitutional grounds to contest it on, and also grows government bigger. Whereas with the EPA there are multiple ways to bring back the lawsuit.

Not to mention now that the leaked documents are in the public domain they can be entered into evidence. It is a long way away from being a done deal.

reply to post by jdub297


It would be a mistake to presume that any ruling made by SCOTUS is an inextricable law that in effect becomes a fixture of stare decisis and can not be overturned, even by the very same Court that made the ruling decided in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007). Indeed, The Bush administrations assertion that it would ignore the Supreme Courts ruling in the event it ruled against them only serves to illustrate the dubious effect a Supreme Court ruling has in such matters.

Indeed, the famous SCOTUS ruling of Worcester v. Georgia where the Supreme Court ruled that Georgia had no right to impose its laws upon Cherokee tribal lands, (a ruling I believe was correct in its reasoning), comes with the legend that Andrew Jackson declared these words after the ruling:

""John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!"

While it remains disputed that Jackson actually said this, that the legend persists is due to the very real Constitutional fact that SCOTUS does not have any authority to enforce its own rulings. The enforcement of legislation is primarily a function of the Executive branches of government. That the Obama administration is clearly willing to enforce the SCOTUS ruling rendered in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, is and should be a concern for the people and due to this ruling it may seem that it would be necessary to bring the case back to the Supreme Court and argue for a reversal of this ruling. That, however, would be a necessity for those who have all ready through certain licensing schemes and other such contracts granted jurisdiction to the EPA to begin with.

A genuine concern for the people of the United States is that by agreeing to the licensing schemes and registration requirements of state DMV's they have in effect granted jurisdiction to the EPA and the peoples gradual loss of rights and the ability to enjoy those rights can, in a large part, be traced back to the imprudent willingness to go into agreement with questionable licensing schemes. While virtually every DMV across the nation asserts that driving is a privilege and not a right, this is merely an assertion being made by them and since they are the ones asserting it, it is incumbent upon this agency to prove it. However, as long as people continue to voluntarily enter into an agreement with this administrative agency, the point is moot.

Back to the aforementioned Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, this ruling is, as most SCOTUS rulings are, very narrow in that ruling and only pertains to the facts of the case. The facts are these: Because the EPA itself had made the determination that they did not have any legal authority to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act, 12 states and several Cities within the U.S. brought suit against the EPA in order to compel them to regulate Co2 and other "greenhouse gasses".

The 5-4 ruling, and the numbers there should make clear that this was not a unanimous ruling by any stretch of the imagination, was predicated on the assumption that "greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act’s capacious definition of air pollutant." Such language only serves to illustrate the inherent flaw in their ruling which is vague and easily contestable. The so called "greenhouse" gasses declared by that ruling to be a "pollutant" are in fact, necessary to the ecosystem of this planet.

The so called "greenhouse gasses", (the term itself being too vague and misleading since what is being described by the term in no way duplicates the actual process of a greenhouse), is a natural and necessary component of to the facilitation of life. Without this natural phenomenon, the planet would be too cold to sustain much of the life that exists on the planet today. When the term "greenhouse gas" is being used within the context of the ruling it means an dangerous rise in these gasses that has been argued to cause yet another capricious term "global warming".

Global warming, in its simplest and most natural state would be either the periods of ages that exist in between ice ages or the day to day natural warmth that would be caused by the rising of the sun. This is why the term is capricious in the current political debate over anthropogenic global warming which is a hypothesis based upon computer models that humans are affecting a rise in global temperatures. This is why in recent years the term has been modified and changed and often times referred to as "climate change" even yet another capricious term.

The capriciousness of such terminology gives standing to any individual whether they be a licensed manufacturer of cement or or power or just an ordinary citizen who recognizes that their rights to life, liberty and property or and/or the pursuit of happiness are being harmed by overarching presumption of authority by an administrative agency. It matters not this agency was instructed by the Supreme Court to review its contention that it has no authority to regulate Co2, nor does it matter that the Executive branch whether it be the Obama administration or any future Presidency would instruct the EPA to regulate C02. It is in the nature of government officials to act as ambitious politicians do, and that is to presume they have authority they may or may not have. If the people do not contest this presumption then that presumed authority has been met with tacit approval at the very least.

An abrogation or derogation of a right has long been held in American jurisprudence to be injurious. If the EPA in fact holds that "greenhouse gasses" contribute to "AGW" or "climate change" it is incumbent upon them to prove it actually does this. Given the current "AGW" debate , and debate by definition means there are indeed opposing views on the matter, it shows there is standing to challenge the EPA and even the Supreme Court ruling in regards to this matter. The remedy in such a challenge should be clear. The Supreme Court would have to reverse their ruling and admit that they or the Court that issued the ruling erred and that the EPA does not have any authority to regulate a natural and necessary gas that is demonstrably necessary to life itself. Any regulation of Co2 that leads to taxation or other intrusiveness is arguably injurious.