It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The Environmental Protection Agency has concluded greenhouse gases are endangering people's health and must be regulated, signaling that the Obama administration is prepared to contain global warming without congressional action if necessary.
]Under a Supreme Court ruling, the so-called endangerment finding is needed before the EPA can regulate carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases released from automobiles, power plants, and factories under the federal Clean Air Act.
The EPA signaled last April that it was inclined to view heat-trapping pollution as a threat to public health and welfare and began to take public comments under a formal rulemaking. The action marked a reversal from the Bush administration, which had refused before leaving office to issue the finding, despite a conclusion by EPA scientists that it was warranted.
The administration has wielded the finding as a prod to Congress to act on legislation, saying in effect that if lawmakers do not act to control greenhouse gas pollution they will use their rule-making power to do so. At the same time, the president and his top environmental aides have frequently said that they prefer such a major step be taken through the give-and-take of the legislative process.
Industry groups and the United States Chamber of Commerce have objected to the proposed regulations, saying they would damage the economy and drive jobs overseas. Some groups are likely to file lawsuits challenging the new regulations, which could delay their effective date for years.
Thomas J. Donohue, the president of the Chamber of Commerce, said that the endangerment finding “could result in a top-down command-and-control regime that will choke off growth by adding new mandates to virtually every major construction and renovation project.” He said that his group supports “rational” federal legislation and an international agreement to control global carbon emissions.
The administration also waved off concerns about the controversy surrounding leaked e-mails at a British climate research center, with the U.S. envoy to the international climate change conference in Copenhagen dismissing the flap as a "small blip."
But Republicans since last week had called on Jackson to withdraw the finding pending an investigation into whether the science behind the decision has been compromised. They raised their concerns following the leak of e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit which appeared to show scientists discussing the manipulation of climate data.
Of course FoxNEWS, among others (unsurprisingly right-wing) News organizations are pointing out that this is all a big mistake now that the 'science' is in question after the stolen climate-gate emails were released.
Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
We allegedly need to grow GM crops in the UK to save the poor people in the third world from climate change (their words, not mine). Why grow the food here to have to ship it? MONEY.
If I bought carbon credits, the projects to tackle climate change are operated in developing countries. Why? So I can not scrutinize them, the MONEY can disappear easily, and because to run the same operations in the DEVELOPED world would mean less profit.
See - nothing to do with the world and the climate. It is pure greed.