It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Anti-Industrial Coup: Environmental Dictatorship by Executive Decree

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:51 AM
link   

The Anti-Industrial Coup: Environmental Dictatorship by Executive Decree


jewishworldreview.com

Yesterday, the EPA issued a "finding" that CO2 threatens human health under the Clean Air Act.

This is a scientific farce.

How can a basic constituent of the atmosphere that all humans constantly exhale be designated a "pollutant"?
This is an assault on representative government. Controls on emissions of carbon dioxide will reach the entire economy, creating restrictions on economic activity that will make bailouts, salary caps, and business seizures look like laissez-faire by comparison
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.freerepublic.com

Related post:www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 26-3-2009 by jdub297]




posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:51 AM
link   
We expected there to be a contest in Congress this year over global warming and Obama/Chu's "cap-and-trade" bill limiting carbon dioxide emissions. Of course, government cannot impose sweeping new controls on our lives without extensive public debate and a vote in Congress that must gain the support of a clear majority of the representatives of the people.

But it just did!

It was done by the decree of executive agency bureaucrats, without an opportunity for public debate or a legislative vote.

The EPA can simply create those controls on its own, without needing to consult the people's representatives.

Ayn Rand warned that environmentalists constituted an "Anti-Industrial Revolution," but the term "revolution" implied popular support.

Instead, this is an anti-industrial coup, a seizure of power by a small elite who seek to bypass the institutions and procedures of legitimate government.

This happened through a usurpation of legislative power by the other two branches of government: the courts and the regulatory agencies of the executive branch.

A 2007 Supreme Court ruling required the EPA to regard carbon dioxide as a potential "airborne pollutant" under the 1990 Clean Air Act (I doubt Congress intended in 1990 to regulate carbon dioxide.)

The EPA (an executive agency) released its report last year setting the foundation to plan out and implement a scheme for regulating carbon dioxide emissions, coordinating the actions of dozens of regulatory agencies.

It was called "Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act."

Congress long ago ceded a large part of its legislative power to the executive branch by passing laws like the Clean Air Act, which set vague goals such as "fighting air pollution" and then gave executive-branch regulatory agencies the power to make "rules" for the implementation of those goals.

Having surrendered that power, Congress may never get it back. Last year, one of Barack Obama's advisors described the candidate's plans for pursuing carbon dioxide regulation when he took office.

Obama, Browner and Chu are essentially telling Congress to write the legislation they want, or else they will simply enact it by decree.

What happened to representative government and the separation of powers?

Barack Obama is proposing to govern, not in the manner of an American president, but in the manner traditionally sought by leftist strongmen like Hugo Chavez.

When global warming regulations are imposed — and given the legal framework of EPA's "finding," they are now inevitable — their ultimate cause will be decades of dishonest cultural propaganda condemning industrial civilization as a scourge to be eliminated. But the immediate cause for this massive new extension of government power is the structure of existing executive-branch power: the all-encompassing reach of the regulatory agencies, and the vast power already surrendered to them by Congress.

This is the shape of the current danger to liberty: our economic freedom is being taken away by regulatory decree, with public debate and congressional votes declared irrelevant ahead of time. It proves the adage that freedom is indivisible — that attempts to take away our economic freedom always begin and end with an attack on our political freedom.

jewishworldreview.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Great catch! S&F for you, along with my thanks for pointing this out.

Just to make sure this source isn't downplayed by those activists on this site, I looked up some more mainstream reports on this decision by the EPA (Extensive Propaganda Agency).


AP
Monday, March 23, 2009

WASHINGTON -- The White House is reviewing a proposed finding by the Environmental Protection Agency that global warming is a threat to public health and welfare.

Such a declaration would be the first step to regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act and could have broad economic and environmental ramifications. It also would likely spur action by Congress to address climate change more broadly.
Source: www.foxnews.com...


On March 20 the EPA sent what is called an "endangerment finding" to the White House, a proposal that means the agency found that there is a scientific case that man-made global warming poses a threat to human welfare. (Reporters found out about the EPA decision the following Monday, after it was posted on a government website.) The finding is a response to an April 2007 Supreme Court decision ordering the EPA to figure out how CO2 from cars should be regulated under the Clean Air Act.
Source: www.time.com...

One thing I noticed immediately was the imagery both sources used to sensationalize the story. I downloaded these images and uploaded them to the media section so I could post them on this thread. Remember,

Carbon dioxide is a colorless, odorless gas.
Source: en.wikipedia.org...

From Faux News:


From Time Magazine:


Gee, just look at all that CO2 in the air around these places. Forget for a moment that CO2 is invisible; what you are actually seeing is smog, which should be regulated, and which is being regulated (supposedly) by the EPA. I only hope they do just as good with a gas which is invisible.


Sensationalism is usually a good indication that the 'science' used needs some help to stand up to scrutiny.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Reply to post by the Redneck

Here's a study that shows methane hydrate can be produced "carbon-neutral."

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Apparently, the "hydrate" in methane hydrate has a greater affinity for CO2 than methane, so by injecting CO2 from gas and oil wells, the methane is released and the CO2 sequestered!

jw

[edit on 26-3-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


How on earth can they get away with this? CO2 is a vital part of our environment. Without it just about all plant life on the planet would die.
We live in synergy with the plants, they need us and we need them. Animals breath in oxygen and exhale CO2. Plants absorb CO2 and produce oxygen.

CO2 is vital to life on earth and should never be designated a pollutant.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Erasurehead
 


There is a difference, though, between natural CO2 and industrial-produced CO2 (emissions).

That is what they are trying to distinguish. I have no doubt that they will push this onto pending legislation and tax the hell out of everyone they can.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Erasurehead
 

Too late! Chu and Browner and Obama didn't want to go through Congress and the legislative process, so they just "regulated" it through the EPA.

EPA is an "executive agency" so they don't have to have hearings, they just make "rules."

Crazy, but true. Our breath is poison. (I know some people that is true about.)



jw



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 
Actually, I think the 2nd photo is steam, which is water vapor, which is a greenhouse gas, and more prevalent in the atmosphere than CO2 and much more effective as a solar trap and greenhouse gas!

Maybe next they'll regulate water out of our lives, too!

Deny ignorance!

jw



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 
The point is, the EPA doesn't have to use "legislation!" They can regulate it as any other "pollutant." Congress isn't needed at all.

jw



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


I know this, you know this, and above all, Congress, the administration, and the EPA know this. This is going to be used as a stepping stone/reason for legislation.

Can anyone hurry up and say "Cap and Trade....Fast-track"???

[edit on 3/26/2009 by skeptic1]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 12:10 PM
link   
what else they are going to "discover" to get all under the control of themself.

now, they can sell the licence to breath. it would please them for the while.

S and F



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


I foresee a one dollar carbon tax on each container of carbonated beverage.
( sell coke and pepsi stock while you can.)

If not the outright prohibition of such beverages... for our own health.

Kool-aid sales will jump... buy stock now.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Rediculous.. carbon dioxide is poisonous to humans yeah, but yuode have to be locked in an air tight room to die from buildup of it. And since on a planet, were not locked in a room..thats that.
Any CO2 that is a problem, clearly is from industry. whens the last time you saw someones chimmney giving off nuclear pyr emissions? its like WTF goverment!



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1

There is a difference, though, between natural CO2 and industrial-produced CO2 (emissions).


Please define this difference. CO2 is a molecule containing one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms covalently bonded to the carbon atom. What makes a carbon dioxide molecule produced by one source different than a carbon dioxide molecule produced from another source? Is there a serial number stamped on it? Is it a different color?

How does it differ?

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ziggy1706

Rediculous.. carbon dioxide is poisonous to humans yeah, but yuode have to be locked in an air tight room to die from buildup of it. And since on a planet, were not locked in a room..thats that.

Actually, the concentration of CO2 would have to be so high (7-10% for those 'sensitive') that you would be experiencing nausea and dizziness long before any chance of 'drowning' in it. And that's exactly what the process would be. CO2 is no more poisonous than nitrogen, and is less corrosive than oxygen.


Any CO2 that is a problem, clearly is from industry. whens the last time you saw someones chimmney giving off nuclear pyr emissions? its like WTF goverment!

CO2 from industry is no different than CO2 from breathing, from forest fires, from volcanic emissions, etc. It's a molecule that will exhibit certain properties regardless of where it came from. Also, you cannot see CO2 coming out of a smokestack. It is perfectly clear, transparent, and invisible. What you are seeing is particulates and other gases (and yes, steam; you're probably right jdub), not CO2.

Come on, people, this is not rocket science... CO2 is what it is! Check out Wikipedia, for Pete's sake.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


What I am saying is that from the stand-point of the EPA (who I have to work with and against daily), there is a difference between naturally produced CO2 and CO2 emissions from industrial processes.

I manage hazmat and hazwaste for the DoD, and I have to keep track of air emissions. We don't track the CO2 the workers breathe, but we have to track the CO2 that is emitted from our industrial processes for our air permit.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1

OK, I misunderstood your intent. Politically, there is an attempt to make this distinction, but it is an artificial distinction at best.

Unfortunately, there are too many weak-minded individuals who will see a statement much as yours and start believing that somehow industrially-produced CO2 is 'dirtier' than respiratory-produced CO2 or volcanic CO2.

So forgive my jump to conclusions, but please also understand why I am so quick to do so. Not to mention, I have to get some exercise...


I do have one question: I wasn't aware the DoD was interested in CO2 as an emission (especially a hazardous one). How long has this been going on?

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


I've been here a dozen years and I have been tracking it for annual reports for all of that time and for our air permit for the past 3 years.

CO2 is CO2....the stuff that is emitted is basically the stuff we exhale, only tainted with several other things. But, politically, CO2 is evil and must be destroyed or taxed to hell and back. Thank Al Gore and his man-made global warming for that one....



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by pyrytyes
 
What about my cattle and birds? My fireplaces? We're in for an incredible intrusion on our freedom and lifestyles.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Here I thought I was doing good for the environment, planting trees, bushes, letting the weeds grow, generating all that O2. Now I gotta cut 'em all down to reduce my carbon footprint enough be continue breathing.


When does all the knee jerk response by our wacko authorities end?

Quick we gotta do something, don't know exactly what, but authorize the taxes for it and we will do something about it soon?



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join