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.

 

Obama Administration Formally Declares Dangers of Carbon Dioxide

page: 1
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Too late! Who needs Congress when you can do it yourself.

Link:
Obama Administration Formally Declares Dangers of Carbon Emissions

This has been coming for a long time. You are now at the mercy of the EPA. Take out your wallets.

You have been warned, though.

March 26, 2009
Anti-Industrial Coup: Environmental Dictatorship by Executive Decree

April 17, 2009
EPA To Declare 6 Gases A Public Health Risk

May 13, 2009
OMB Criticizes EPA Finding on Greenhouse Gases

Deny ignorance!

jw

[edit on 7-12-2009 by jdub297]




posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


I guess they are giving us little choice. Either fight or drop 'em, bend over, and grab your ankles.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by HotSauce
 

Time's up.

Give them a few weeks to get the rules in place, then watch the price of everything.

Watch the effect on US markets as it sinks in, and on foreign markets when they recognize that we're willing to hamstring our own industries and consumers.

jw



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Wow you two guys are smarter than the entire breath of the global scientific community.

Here I thought that thousands of the world's leading scientist had it right but nope you both proved them wrong with...er....that grab your ankles comment.

I guess I will just throw away my copies of Scientific American and other journals.

Thanks I appreciate it.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by AllexxisF1
 


Oh, do you mean the scientists that got busted lying their asses off, threatening any scientist who disagreed with them, and manipulated the data to support their cause? Those scientists?



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   

"threaten the public health and welfare of the American people"

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Does this place Obama in a position where he can sign-up to whatever he thinks fit to sign at Hopenchangen?

Maybe this is 'Plan B' to hurry things a long a LITTLE, because of the potential outcomes of the CRU enquiries.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Obama Administration Formally Declares Dangers of Carbon Dioxide.


Yes, I hear it like every 1/2 hour if you are listening to the radio.

The EPA declared this today.



This is So insane and the masses believe this garbage.





Yea, Co2 is sooo bad!


More Co2 aids plant life, your lawns at home will be greener.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   
This is potentially heavy stuff, me thinks there is lots of arm twisting going down.
I ran through a little time-line.

Nov 20th: CRU e-mails are made available. (Guess I don't need a link to that)

Nov 25th: Obama Announces He Will Attend [Start of] COP15 Climate Conference (on December 9th)
www.triplepundit.com...

Nov 20-30th: Climategate builds to where even MSM have to report on it.
Dec 1st: Phil Jones, one of the central figures in the Climategate scandal, is temporarily stepping down:

dreadpundit.blogspot.com...

Dec 3rd: University at center of Climategate email scandal announces investigation details
www.examiner.com...
Dec 4th: Obama shifts gears, will attend close of Copenhagen talks
thehill.com...

Dec 4th: United Nations to probe climate e-mail leak
sweetness-light.com...

Dec 7th: COP15 (Copenhagen) begins

Dec 7th: See topic header.


From what I recall, initially the chances of a legally binding deal, at Copenhagen, was considered unlikely but that that may come in 6 months or so.

Is a legally binding deal a possibility now?



[edit on 7-12-2009 by phrig]

[edit on 7-12-2009 by phrig]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by HotSauce
reply to post by AllexxisF1
 


....busted lying their asses off, threatening any scientist who disagreed with them, and manipulated the data to support their cause? Those scientists?


You are talking about these guys...right?

Survey Finds Bush Administration Interfering with EPA Scientists
WASHINGTON, DC, April 24, 2008 (ENS) - The Bush administration has frequently meddled with scientists at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, according to a survey released today by a scientific advocacy group. .....nearly two-thirds of the 1,586 staff EPA scientists who responded to a questionnaire complained of recent political interference with their work.
www.ens-newswire.com...

Bush-era EPA document on climate change released
The 2007 draft suppressed until now calls for regulation of greenhouse gases, citing global warming as a serious risk to the U.S. A finding by the Obama administration is nearly identical.
articles.latimes.com...

Bush Administration covered up global warming finding
rawstory.com...

Bush EPA Buried Global Warming Findings
www.takepart.com...

With time short, Bush pushes EPA to relax power-plant rule
www.mcclatchydc.com...



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Goodbye sweet America, I will miss you.
I don't see anything stopping them now. I can't freakin believe they are getting away with this crap. I don't think I have ever been this angry and scared at the same time.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Let Obama be the first to stop breathing.

By not exhaling he could help save the planet.

Lead by example Mr. President.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
I know it is pointless, but what the heck I will try a little rational explanation.

Economics...When a corporation, manufacturer, utility company, chemical production facility or other for-profit entity pollutes or creates a product that pollutes...they are operating at a subsidy...The cost of that pollution is payed for by you and I via government clean-ups, medical costs etc. We subsidize the profits.

Here let me explain it in your terms...allowing the citizens of a country to subsidize the profits of manufactures is SOCIALISM!!

Asking them to pollute less or pay a fine is just one measure to get them to carry the full cost of production rather than literally pass it downstream and downwind. If done right Cap and trade is another mechanism...basic economics...the alternative is allowing them to operate with a subsidy at our expense..

But I understand in America this isn't a logical debate or scientific debate...it is an emotional one, a culture war...left vs right...them vs. us...yada yada...



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Walkswithfish
 


OR, he could appoint four plants into his entourage, to process his emissions. I think that'd make a fine statement. One of them could be the President's new press secretary, always at his left side during televised statements.

From the OP's link:

"An endangerment finding from the EPA 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," Thomas Donohue, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said in a statement. "The devil will be in the details, and we look forward to working with the government to ensure we don't stifle our economic recovery."


What recovery? The one fostered by cap & trade? I think the outcome of these meetings have already been decided. Remember to act surprised when your power costs go up 25%. GREAT boon to a downward-spiraling economy.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   
You know, they also need to regulate methane emissions as well, especially in Washington.

The extravagant diet of virtually all politicians in D.C. needs to be modified through government regulations that would reduce methane emissions.

I hereby formally declare our flatulent government a serious danger to all of our lives.

Pffffffffffffft.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Well I guess I must be avictum of a Brain Fart. I have allways been unere the school of learning (1976) that breathing produces carbon dioxide and that fossel fules produce carbon monoxide. A big difference. Supposing that this early school of thought is right then the only solution to the global warming/cardon dioxide issue would be global population reduction. But then what do I know, as I am not as educated as most.

slayerofmen



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Carbon Dioxide is bad!?!?
SSSSSHHHHHHHHHH... Don't tell the plants - they seem to like it!


What a load of bunk! Now that they've been discovered as frauds, they need to hurry up and jam all of this legislation through ASAP.

Me, I'm gonna build a fire in my fireplace each and every night this winter to commemorate this crap!



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


I'm amazed more and more every day. Everything Bush did was awful until Obama does the exact same thing. After that, it's just fine.

In other words, it's OK that Obama's doing it because Bush did it too? Nice to see that you don't hold your guy's standards as high as those you don't support. Your blind faith is showing.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllexxisF1
Wow you two guys are smarter than the entire breath of the global scientific community.

Here I thought that thousands of the world's leading scientist had it right but nope you both proved them wrong with...er....that grab your ankles comment.

I guess I will just throw away my copies of Scientific American and other journals. Thanks I appreciate it.


Glad to help since you are like 2 threads over. The topic here is EPA regulation and the cost to business and consumers.

Has nothing to do with scientists respiration, except to the extent the hot air in it contains CO2.

Ask your mom to show you the way to the threads where the other AGW sheep play.

This one is where grownups talk about executive action taking the place of legislation and the declaration of CO2 as harmful to humans.

Deny ignorance.

jw



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by phrig
This is potentially heavy stuff, me thinks there is lots of arm twisting going down.
I ran through a little time-line.

From what I recall, initially the chances of a legally binding deal, at Copenhagen, was considered unlikely but that that may come in 6 months or so.

Is a legally binding deal a possibility now?


Ever heard of "Chicago-style" politics? You are watching it at the national/international level.

Obama will force the issue through EPA if he can. Remember the campaign and the first few weeks of the new administration?

"Never waste a good crisis."

Obama Agenda Moving Forward by Crisis

jw



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 

Economics...When a corporation, manufacturer, utility company, chemical production facility or other for-profit entity pollutes or creates a product that pollutes...they are operating at a subsidy...The cost of that pollution is payed for by you and I via government clean-ups, medical costs etc. We subsidize the profits.


The only problem with your premise is that you (and Al G., the EPA and Obama) consider CO2 at present levels to be "pollution," that is, "endangering human health and welfare."

Tell us how much CO2 is costing the American public in "clean ups, medical costs, etc."

Then, look at the OMB studies of how much these new regs WIL COST once put into effect. And the benefit.

Baaaaa.

Deny ignorance.

jw



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join