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.

 

Administration Warns of 'Command-and-Control' Regulation Over Emissions

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Administration Warns of 'Command-and-Control' Regulation Over Emissions


www.foxnews.com

The Obama administration is warning Congress that if it doesn't move to regulate greenhouse gases, the Environmental Protection Agency will take a "command-and-control" role over the process in a way that could hurt business.

The warning, from a top White House economic official who spoke Tuesday on condition of anonymity, came on the eve of EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson's address to the international conference on climate change in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Jackson, however, tried to strike a tone of cooperation in her address Wednesday, explaining that the EPA's new powers to regulat
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   
First off I would like to say that I do not intend to do any political bashing on one party or the other. However It is unfathomable to believe that in this state on economic disarray that Obama would be handing out a thereat like this. I hope and pray for a president that enough dignity to not be an NWO puppet like we have seen in the last few administrations. Get ready for more oppression as this (((Climate-Gate))) lie continues to be shoved down our throats.
But we have to believe it because the government says it is true, or do we? Now that this whole lie of global warming has been exposed, get out of your seats and show everyone the real truth. The truth being that this agenda has been created to oppress the people and create a one world government.

Best Regards
The_Tick!

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   
yeah, i was thinking the same thing, obama shuoldnt be maknig such remarks, with a bad recesion goin on.
Look, anyone ever see hbo documentary, who killed the electric car? Thier was a guy in CA, who designed and built,, an electric car. Would have sold for about $6,000 and you got 3,400 miles on it, if i rememebr correctly. HE had toaled to governemnt, and they were not interested, not even in the blueprints. SO! here we see, scandal* allt hy gotta do is replace gasoline cars with electric ones!!! oh, bu the way, the guy, the car ran mostly off a computer chip* so it didnt need 6 batterys, for the record.
For whatever reason, greed, power, control all 3, the auto makers and big oil WILL NOT allow this happen....they want profits to rmain in control..
it makes me wonder, that its true, a story i read. Henry ford made his fords..one day, a bunch of thugs from Rockelfeller approaced henry ford, saying you will be using our product (gasoline) not yours, or you wont be making cars anymore*
all i see here is a scandal to raise and/or impose new hefty taxes.. me thins the british won the revolutionary war..
its all talk talk talk do as i say and never a solution with our superiors. all about money and who gets the contract*



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   
So, this is how obama The Destroyer is going to pass Cap & Tax. Threaten with the EPA, saying to the effect that you can get hit with cap an trade or really get hit with the EPA with the Clean Air Act.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Heres the problem at least with emissions* most dont take care of their car and do simple things like change spark plugs, change oil often...acids and carbon and contaniments build up very quickly inn motor oil, thats a fact* it takes oil a minimum of 8 miles driving til it fully warms up to operatnion temperature. Oil needs to be pushed hard, no go through stop n go traffic like the majority of us do...that degrades oil very quick, no matter if its synthetic or not. Thats the truth...
i guess the catalyc converter and EGR valves arnt good enough. we need new technology to replace motor oil. not chianginf yuor oil every 3 months or 3,000 miles of street use, not highway use, will add more carbon out the tailpipe*



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by The_Tick
 


The American people should be warning the administration of
a "Regime Change" in November 2010 and 2012.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Forgot to metnion..change those spark plugs too, every 2 years or 30,000 miles, and dont buy into those fancy Iridium and platinum ones..they will egarde very quickly* not changing those psark plgus and wires, means your not comusting gas with air very well, thierfore maknig more emissions*



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   
The EPA has often resorted to “command and control” enforcement of environmental regulations. Although in most cases it is the most expensive and repressive approach, it has long been the tactic of first resort. EPA has a long history of directing industrial compliance despite economic concerns, even rattling the saber of criminal enforcement.


The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) relies almost completely on a policy approach that guarantees that the cost of protecting the environment is much higher than necessary. The EPA favors a “command and control” approach that relies on directives (or commands) for how, and how much, polluters control their pollution. I shall point to the problems with this approach in this column, which provides a basis against which to compare the market approach I shall discuss in future columns.

Economic Notions ~ The High Cost of Command and Control

“Control strategy” is the most important “tool” in the EPA arsenal. It is employed despite costs, even though the stragey calls for consideration of economic impact. As a general rule, economic costs are given little more than lip service.


A control strategy is a set of discrete and specific measures identified and implemented to achieve reductions in air pollution. These measures may vary by source type, such as stationary or mobile, as well as by the pollutant that is being targeted. The purpose of these measures is to achieve the air quality standard or goal. Costs and benefits are assessed in the development of the control strategy.

Air Qulaity Management Control Strategies

Get out your wallets. This has been in the works for several years. The Bush administration refused to allow EPA to begin the process, and was of course roundly criticized from the left for “politicizing science.”

Well, you’ve got what you asked for. Get ready to pay for it.

jw



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


I really don't know what to say. I'm keep hoping that this is just some kind of messed up dream, but it's not. We're having so much shoved down our throats, and it seems there's nothing we the people can do about it. The Tea Partys what little press coverage they got showed the government that were tired of their bull, but it seems they don't care what we think, they're going to do what they want period.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   
The Legislation Solution is too late.
The energy corruption since 1945 may finally be exposed.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 


I think we should abolish the EPA January 2013.
You're fired! Now get out!



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   
Say what you will, but I have been thinking someone should step up with the guts to do this for a decade.

There are industries destroying our planet. If they don't have the decency to develop some sense of loyalty and care to our one and only home, and the home of our children, then by george it's about time someone stepped up and MADE them do it.

Some people just don't get it. All these people have cared about is making money, money, and money to the detriment of our rivers, earth and skies, the very air we breathe.

This is long overdue. Let them spend some of that money they love so well to figure out a way to maintain their industries without killing our home.

This should have been done years ago. Finally someone with the guts and intelligence to do something about it.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 


I think we should abolish the EPA January 2013.
You're fired! Now get out!


Can I give them the re education program Clinton use to get America
back to work during the down sizing.
I'd give them a refresher in Tesla technology hell, a completely useless
re education.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   
All in all our country has a fairly clean standard now. What about China the largest polluter on the planet, they are not buying into an international environmental code what so ever..



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 11:55 PM
link   
Isnt it congress who can say that the EPA is stepping out of line if they wanted to? Correct me if im wrong, but the EPA is under the control of congress, isnt this just an empty threat?



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
Say what you will, but I have been thinking someone should step up with the guts to do this for a decade.

There are industries destroying our planet. If they don't have the decency to develop some sense of loyalty and care to our one and only home, and the home of our children, then by george it's about time someone stepped up and MADE them do it.

Some people just don't get it. All these people have cared about is making money, money, and money to the detriment of our rivers, earth and skies, the very air we breathe.

This is long overdue. Let them spend some of that money they love so well to figure out a way to maintain their industries without killing our home.

This should have been done years ago. Finally someone with the guts and intelligence to do something about it.


You are aware that with out CO2, plant life cannot exist on earth? It is directly because of CO2 that life is able to exist at all.

Industrial pollution is a problem, but technology can improve this problem area.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 12:20 AM
link   
semperfoo, I could not agree with you more!

Is it just me or is this whole global warming/ carbon tax easy to buy into. The media and the EU sell it very well. If I was a sheepole I would have been sold out to it myself, It does sound logical at first.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 06:37 AM
link   
reply to post by semperfoo
 


You are aware the planet itself can balance it's co2 and oxygen levels? Or are you saying vegetation is dependent on pollution to survive?

Human beings emit co2. Covered. Additionally, nobody can stop all the industrial/automotive emissions.

I don't think worrying about not having enough co2 to keep our vegetation alive is one of our big problems.


edit to add: when you say "technology can improve" co2 emissions from industries, you do understand they are not, have not, will not, and this is the reason for the negotiations? To FORCE them to do so, by taking their precious money in penalties for not doing so?

You do realize this is what this is about?


[edit on 12/10/0909 by ladyinwaiting]



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfoo
Isnt it congress who can say that the EPA is stepping out of line if they wanted to? Correct me if im wrong, but the EPA is under the control of congress, isnt this just an empty threat?



Right, and who is in control of congress/ senate? The dems, so what the epa said is pretty much a done deal. so you could say and excuse my french were screwed.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by The_Tick
 


The proposed climate bill is to give trillions of dollars on tax payer money to countries like China, Brazil and India so we can buy favors from them and encourage better pollution laws call "credits".

Now, doesn't that tells you what kind of morons we have in congress?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join