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.

 

EPA Poised to Declare CO2 a Public Danger

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 01:17 AM
link   
Also I would like to add that anybody could file an FOIA and request to see the science and methods they use to determine man-made CO2 from naturally occurring CO2. The EPA being a Government Agency is subject to FOIA request. Then based off of the FOIA information a lawsuit could be filed stating that there means of determining CO2 regulation is false, because there is noway to determine man-made CO2 from naturally occurring CO2.




posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


Next on the list is H2O!

How long will 'we' sit still for this sort of thing? It takes years to bring a suit forward, not to mention lots of $$$$. By the time there is a chance of overturn in the courts most of the damage will have been done.

The EPA are terrorists.

I am more afraid of pencil pushers than bombers these days.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Chett
 


Yes! H2O (DHMO) should be declared public danger and taxed accordingly too. Here's some facts:


What are some of the dangers associated with DHMO?
Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment. Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:

* Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
* Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
* Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
* DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
* Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
* Contributes to soil erosion.
* Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
* Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
* Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
* Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
* Given to vicious dogs involved in recent deadly attacks.
* Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere, and in hurricanes including deadly storms in Florida, New Orleans and other areas of the southeastern U.S.
* Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.


www.dhmo.org...




posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 08:53 AM
link   
I am from Canada and I have a question for americans: Why do the Usa always seem to need an ennemy, communist, terrorist and now a war on co2? I would like to have an answer because I dont understand that ideology.
Thank you.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 


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.


That was the original case, except MA was suing to force EPA to regulate; EPA said they shouldn't because it was a naturally occurring element and was more appropriately regulated as an automobile exhaust gas component by other agencies.


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.

Laws can be found unconstitutional as well. The first major SCt. case was about an alleged unconstitutional exercise of Congressional powers (Marbury v. Madison).


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.


Being in the "public domain" doesn't make anything admissible.
It must be sponsored, verified, authoritative, relevant and probative. They require a live witness to establish the truth of the matter asserted, and are essentially hearsay (something someone said out of court, not under oath, offered for the truth of the matter asserted.)

Not as easy as you think.

Done.
Deal.
Too late. You snooze, you lose.

jw

[edit on 6-12-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by airlouche
I am from Canada and I have a question for americans: Why do the Usa always seem to need an ennemy, communist, terrorist and now a war on co2? I would like to have an answer because I dont understand that ideology.
Thank you.


something we learned from the british
war makes a ton of money
and you need an enemy for war



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   
That was just Mass. that brought that lawsuit though. There are still the states that weren't involved in that lawsuit that can bring suit.

Of course laws can be found unconstitutional but on what constitutional grounds can Cap and Trade be contested? I can't think of one. The documents are in the public domain and upon entering in the documents as evidence they can bring in scientist that will verify the computer code, therefore making the code evidence in a court case.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree, but there will be lawsuits brought upon the EPA to strip their authority to regulate CO2. Just wait and see, this is far from a done deal.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 
Sorry Camus/Sartre, the appropriateness of Obama's assumption of power is no longer an issue. Neither is the ability of the EPA to regulate within the bounds of its authorization (the Environmental Protection Act).


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.


I believe you and hastobemore... do not realize that there are 2 issues involved:

does EPA have the authority to regulate?

is a specific regulation legal?

The SCotUS decided that EPA has authority to regulate. Since there were no regulations at the time, there was no reason to decide the 2nd question.

The ability to regulate and the legality of the regulation are legal issues, which courts may address.

Whether a specific regulation is wise or appropriate is generally a political issue that is beyond judicial review.

Legality of a regulation is assessed under a specific standard, different from most other cases. Under "substantial evidence" review, an administrative agency's findings, regulations, et c. will not be overturned where they are supported by "more than a scintilla" of evidence.

In the subject circumstances, the EPA doesn't have to rely on CRU or Hadley or IPCC opinions. Jim Hansen will do. So long as their decision is not arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by any evidence, it will be upheld.

A common expression used by courts is to say that the agency decision need only be reasonable, it need not be "right," under the substantial evidence test.
Look back at the history of the EPA and any other of a number of administrative agencies. Their actions will only be rejected if they overstepped authority, or acted without sufficient (as opposed to the great weight, preponderance, et c.) evidence.

Sorry.

jw



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


You just explained exactly why a court case will be able to strip them of their authority to regulate CO2, because there is no legitimate reason to regulate CO2. Even though the EPA might have published "findings" for a "reasonable" excuse to regulate CO2 that does not mean the reason they give is actually "reasonable".

Therefore the reason for them to regulate CO2 can and will be taken to court and subsequently found that they do not have the authority to regulate a CO2 because there is no evidence beyond a doubt that CO2 is actually a threat to society.

Of course the EPA has the authority to regulate and enforce those regulations, but that does not mean they can go around and regulate anything they deem to be a threat. There is limits to their authority, and the regulation of CO2 can be argued that is overstepping their bounds because there is no scientific evidence to support the reason for them to regulate CO2.

What I don't think you understand is that the EPA can be taken to court in light of new evidence against ANY regulation that they have in place. If new evidence surfaces that proves their "reasonable" excuse is no longer reasonable, then they have no authority to enforce that regulation.

Again that is why Obama wants to pass Cap and Trade because then the only way for the law to be overturned is for the Supreme Court to find that the law is unconstitutional. The EPA backdoor regulation of CO2 is fragile and weak. Now as I said with the evidence that surfaced from CRU that the science has been cooked, that gives the people bringing suit against the EPA to force James Hansan to release all data, code, and methods to prove beyond a doubt that CO2 is actually a threat.

The position you are arguing would be akin to the EPA saying that people can only drink a certain amount of water or products can only contain or companies can only produce a certain amount of water, because the EPA says that their reason to regulate water is reasonable.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 

Of course the EPA has the authority to regulate and enforce those regulations, but that does not mean they can go around and regulate anything they deem to be a threat. There is limits to their authority, and the regulation of CO2 can be argued that is overstepping their bounds because there is no scientific evidence to support the reason for them to regulate CO2.


This would not be a "no evidence" review. The standard is whether there is "more than a scintilla" of evidence supporting the decision on water, CO2, et c. Their "finding" does not have to be "right" or "correct."

If their finding is "arbitrary and capricious" (as in your 'water' example) then there is, as a matter of law, insufficient support for the regulations resulting from the findings.

Jim Hansen, Steve Chu, Carol Browner, John Holdren and Lisa Anderson will testify, if called, sufficient to support the EPA findings.

The Obama Justice Department will fight at every level. And win.

This is a political decision, virtually immune from judicial review.

Sorry.


What I don't think you understand is that the EPA can be taken to court in light of new evidence against ANY regulation that they have in place. If new evidence surfaces that proves their "reasonable" excuse is no longer reasonable, then they have no authority to enforce that regulation.


Look, I disagree completely with what Chu/Browner/Obama et al are doing about energy and the environment. I believe our focus should be on preservation of our own locales and the support of alternative sources and recycling.

But, anybody "can be taken to court" by anyone else. That's not good enough. How many outdated regs and laws are still on the books? Since no one is trying to enforce them, no one else notices - they just sort of moulder there.

EPA will always have "authority" to enforce its own regulations. The regulations themselves may be subject to attack, but only under very specific rules.

A majority of states will be adversely affected, as will almost every person and industry in the country.

The challenges will only be whether EPA has authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate "harmful" constituents of auto and industrial exhaust, and whether CO2 is one of those "harmful" constituents.

They clearly have authority; arguing otherwise ignores the "plain meaning" of the statute.

Finding CO2 "harmful" is the real fight. Unless you are willing to ignore the AGW advocates in and out of government, you must admit that there is "more than a scintilla" of evidence supporting such a finding. No court in the US will substitute its judgment under the present state of the law and jurisprudence.

Sorry, again. Really.


Again that is why Obama wants to pass Cap and Trade because then the only way for the law to be overturned is for the Supreme Court to find that the law is unconstitutional. The EPA backdoor regulation of CO2 is fragile and weak. Now as I said with the evidence that surfaced from CRU that the science has been cooked, that gives the people bringing suit against the EPA to force James Hansan to release all data, code, and methods to prove beyond a doubt that CO2 is actually a threat.


Yes, all true. But so what? You've got NOAA, NASA the Univ. of Colorado and M.I.T., to name a few, who will say the opposite. There doesn't have to be a "consensus" to support the finding, just "enough" evidence. There is enough evidence.

Don't you realize that EPA and similar agencies have withstood similar attacks for decades? Birds and fish (the Peregreine falcon, Atwater's Prarie chicken, Spotted owl, golden cheek warblers'; the Snail darter, pupfish and salmon) have stopped or impeded the construction of highways, buildings, dams and power plants at huge expense, economically and politically, for as long as the Clean Air, Clean Water and Endangered Species acts have been around.

Do you think ruination of the economy, destruction of personal freedoms and wealth, the uncompensated taking of property, and belief in an unfounded wealth-transferring "scientific consensus" will be enough to make THIS any different?

Look at the MSM, ask your neighbors, scan ATS posts and threads. No one else gives a damn!

Or haven't you noticed?

The AGW religion is supreme. Non believers must be converted or eliminated. Call it crusade or jihad, the result is the same. ("AGW akbar!)

Sorry.

jw

[edit on 7-12-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   
So now that the gauntlet has been cast, now what?

EPA's well timed "decision" comes on the very start of the MMGW talks - and the red flag is casually waved and pushed aside. I normally take a liberal viewpoint on many an issue, but this is just astounding.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Unnoan
 


The Administration's motto:
"Never wait for the people to permit or Congress to enact what you can do by yourself."

As of 2:00 EST, the EPA is beginning to prepare regs and announced it will enforce this and any legislation from Congress..

Read it and weep:
Obama Administration Formally Declares Danger of Carbon Dioxide

Deny ignorance!

jw


[edit on 7-12-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297

As of 2:00 EST, the regs have been published and announced.


And so begins Step 6...




On the legal issue, I would like to ask a question of those posting here. Most substances have maximum levels that are considered dangerous as a part of their regulation. For instance, water can contain deadly chlorine or fluoride, as long as the concentration does not exceed regulations. Would that not make carbon dioxide emissions rather difficult to enforce? After all, someone mentioned the carbon dioxide level in exhaled air... would the levels not have to be above that? Otherwise would a patient not be able to actually sue a doctor who revived them for exposure to a hazardous material?

Yeah, it sounds crazy, but so does a lawsuit over spilt hot coffee because it was hot....

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Cool! This makes me happy.


I am not devoid of emotion and to all my ATS brothers and sisters who are upset over this I offer you this:



Now you can't say I do not care.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 

Ha Ha Ha!


So right. People and business are already threatening lawsuits, bit it is too late.

What EPA will do is start low, then build up. The first regs will have minimal impact, so no one will complain. That will establish precedent for the next round, which will be more restrictive. Finally, well after the 2010 elections, the EPA will unveil the worst of the worst.

By then, people and business will have become complacent. Obama and lackeys will push on for climate change measures he can take to the voters in 2012.

Remember Perot's warning about NAFTA? "That rushing sound you hear are American jobs" leaving a punitive regulatory environment for "developing countries" that don't give a damn about CO2 or 'cap and trade.'

The ones that HAVE TO stay, e.g., utilities, will just charge more and pass the costs of compliance along to the customers.


The clock is ticking. How much longer will you wait?

jw


[edit on 7-12-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Just a simple question. If CO2 is deemed to be poisonous then what will be put in fizzy pop and drive the beer through the tubes?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join