A Bush-ism was used by people with opposing views on climate change to describe today's determination by the EPA.
Game-changer. The Bush administration refused to regulate greenhouse gases as a pollutant. In April 2007, the Supreme Court over-ruled that.
Today the Obama administration made good on a campaign promise and changed the game. Now that the EPA has determined greenhouse gases are a pollutant that endangers public health, the question becomes - what should be done about it? The EPA can regulate, Congress can pass legislation, or the EPA can take delay regulation until the technology is cost effective.
The EPA wants Congress to take the lead. Lawmakers are already hammering out their proposals in the hopes of passing legislation by the end of the year.
So what do you think should be done?
Comments
You can build all the "green" homes and autos you want Garry and it won't change the fact that we consume far more than our competitors do. Some American scientists suggest that the rest of the world must rise to our (USA) cost of living: The planet cannot handle that level of consumerism. Instead of bending toward secular elitism, the logical thing might be for us to consume less while producing superior and sustainable planet-friendly products made from our own garbage.
You can build all the "green" homes and autos you want Garry and it won't change the fact that we consume far more than our competitors do. Some American scientists suggest that the rest of the world must rise to our (USA) cost of living: The planet cannot handle that level of consumerism. Instead of bending toward secular elitism, the logical thing might be for us to consume less while producing superior and sustainable planet-friendly products made from our own garbage.
I think the real solution is for the US to raise import tarrifs on goods produced under lower environmental standards than the US has. This will level the market inside the US and US produced goods will not be at any price disadvantage, and it will also serve as an incentive for foreign countries and companies to catch up with US environmental laws.
Garry
April 19, 2009.
Last Friday on the McNeil/Lehrer newshour there was a debate on the economic ramifications
of the EPA regulating carbon-dioxide emissions. The gentleman representing US manufacturing
kept on saying that "cap and trade" will raise the cose of business which will make US made
products not competitive relative to imports and will hurt US business, and that at a time
when we are trying to get out of a recession this will cause more harm than good.
The problem with this argument is that no matter what the actual state of the economy, US
business will use the same argument (witness Detroits sucessful lobbying against lowering
auto emissions over the past couple of decades, regardless of the current economic climate). This argument is a non-argument because it never leads to any change, a situation that we
cannot live with.
The real solution is for the US to raise import tarrifs on goods produced under lower environmental
standards than the US has. This will level the market inside the US and US produced goods will not
be at any price disadvantage, and it will also serve as an incentive for foreign countries and
companies to catch up with US environmental laws.
We already use an analogous strategy with child labor laws. For example we avoid importing silk rugs
from countries that use child labor to make them, either by law or by coercing companies that
have done so into not doing it by public pressure.
sincerely,
Peter Lawrence, San Jose, CA.
East Side Story
.
Stephanie : ♫ Lots of melting in America.
Erika : Lots of freezing in Antarctica.
Steph : Hardly on West Side, Erika. ♫
.
E : ♫ Industrial smoke will not choke you.
S : Occupational croak will now stoke you.
E : Australian bloak will now free you.
S : I raise you five and then see you. ♫
.
S&E : Lots of good songs in America. ♫
S&E : For Stephanie and Erika. ♫
I appreciate the segment on gov't action on 'Global Warming', however, I wish more of the media would realize:
1). Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Colorless and Odorless. Showing a smokey smokestack billowing noxious smoke is *NOT* Carbon Dioxide, and is deceptive reporting. Just because "all photojournalists do it" isn't a real reason.
2). CO2 is Plant Food. Otherwise, Hot Houses wouldn't pipe in EXTRA CO2 to make their plants grow better. CO2 is as much a pollutant to plants as OXYGEN is a pollutant to humans. CO2 is not in any way, shape or form a pollutant. It is always beneficial, and MORE of it should be encouraged. Ref: Google David Archibald.
3). Cap and Trade will be an additional Hidden Tax. Since the USA is now more socialist than Sweden, taxing lower and middle classes even MORE should make everyone happier....
4). 2011 is gearing up to be a Very Cold Year. Already, polls indicate general acceptance of the tenant of GW is waning. If a very bitter winter takes place, it should completely kill the GW nonsense.
5). Margaret Thatcher in Britain is responsible for instigating all this GW nonsense. She was fighting with the Coal Miners, and gave scientists extra pounds to find reasons to hate coal. Surprise, they came up with this cocamamie reason.
This hurts me more than it will hurt you mon petite sérine. I hate to have to break this to you Stephanie. You cannot treat the symptom. You cannot blame the small molecule. You look deeper -- then deeper, then further up the pipe. Then you find it. When Pogo found the culprit the perpetrator was a mere zygote. Alas, he has grown larger. At 6 billion strong and growing exponentially he cannot now be stopped. We are doomed. But cheer up! So is everyone else.
Cheers,
A