Supremes rule against Bush
#11
04-04-2007, 06:31 AM
Re: Supremes rule against Bush
This whole thing of the "Supremes rule against BUSH" is just a media creation anyway.
CO2 is not a pollutant. It exists in the earth’s atmosphere and every blade of grass and every great tree is utterly dependent upon it. In that regard, other than the oxygen on which all living creatures depend, CO2 is the second most essential gas for its ability to harness the energy of the sun and, through photosynthesis, maintain every form of vegetation on earth.
This ruling likely means that the cost of many automobiles, trucks and tractors in America might increase for no good reason. The many mandated formulations of gasoline that are part of its cost might also increase.
What is the most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for an estimated 95% of the earth’s greenhouse effect? It is water vapor. Its origin is 99.999% natural. If you wondered where the snow goes when it melts, it becomes for a time, water vapor.
To view this situation as a "supremes versus Bush" is just taking liberal media bias to a new high.
CO2 is not a pollutant. It exists in the earth’s atmosphere and every blade of grass and every great tree is utterly dependent upon it. In that regard, other than the oxygen on which all living creatures depend, CO2 is the second most essential gas for its ability to harness the energy of the sun and, through photosynthesis, maintain every form of vegetation on earth.
This ruling likely means that the cost of many automobiles, trucks and tractors in America might increase for no good reason. The many mandated formulations of gasoline that are part of its cost might also increase.
What is the most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for an estimated 95% of the earth’s greenhouse effect? It is water vapor. Its origin is 99.999% natural. If you wondered where the snow goes when it melts, it becomes for a time, water vapor.
To view this situation as a "supremes versus Bush" is just taking liberal media bias to a new high.
#12
04-04-2007, 07:12 AM
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Finger Lakes Region NY
Posts: 264
Re: Supremes rule against Bush
The Earth is round.
Global warming is real.
It is caused by excess CO2 in the atomosphere.
Global warming does not care what your politics are. Politics has nothing to do with it, other than to mislead people into ignoring the problem, or minimizing it.
Harry
Global warming is real.
It is caused by excess CO2 in the atomosphere.
Global warming does not care what your politics are. Politics has nothing to do with it, other than to mislead people into ignoring the problem, or minimizing it.
Harry
#13
04-04-2007, 07:22 AM
Re: Supremes rule against Bush
Agreed that there is excess CO2 in the atmosphere.
Disagreed that the EPA can do anything that will impact that situation.
Humans on Earth, breathing, put 16,250,000,000 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere per day.
What's next: "Supremes Rule Against Breathing" ?????
Carbon Dioxide from Buildings: Buildings structure account for about 12% of carbon dioxide emissions.
What next: "Supremes Rule Against Buildings" ???
Seriously folks, I'm not one of the "OH MY GOD HUMANS ARE DESTROYING THE EARTH" people and I'm also not one of the "OH MY GOD GLOBAL WARMING IS SUCH A SCAM" people either.
I just think it's silly to classify CO2 as a "pollutant."
Disagreed that the EPA can do anything that will impact that situation.
Humans on Earth, breathing, put 16,250,000,000 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere per day.
What's next: "Supremes Rule Against Breathing" ?????
Carbon Dioxide from Buildings: Buildings structure account for about 12% of carbon dioxide emissions.
What next: "Supremes Rule Against Buildings" ???
Seriously folks, I'm not one of the "OH MY GOD HUMANS ARE DESTROYING THE EARTH" people and I'm also not one of the "OH MY GOD GLOBAL WARMING IS SUCH A SCAM" people either.
I just think it's silly to classify CO2 as a "pollutant."
#14
04-04-2007, 07:30 AM
Re: Supremes rule against Bush
Balance is an important part of life. For instance, water is essential but too little and there is drought and famine - flooding is not good either.
If we choose to be technical, there is an imbalance of CO2 that is causing harm.
If we choose to be technical, there is an imbalance of CO2 that is causing harm.
#15
04-04-2007, 07:39 AM
Re: Supremes rule against Bush
Calculate your household's Greenhouse Gas Footprint:
How Gassy are You?
My household with 4 people it's 23,790 pounds per year.
How Gassy are You?
My household with 4 people it's 23,790 pounds per year.
#16
04-04-2007, 08:32 AM
Re: Supremes rule against Bush
You know, even as a Republican I've stood by and watched GW's presidency fall short in important areas, but I don't think he deserves the scathing criticism often directed to him - remember there's an entire government full of Democrats and Republicans alike that can shoulder some blame. It's not all one guy.
Also consider this - yes, we have not found Ben-Laden in 5 1/2 years but it's a harder job than most folks can possibly imagine. Also, how many terrorist attacks have occured on American soil since? America has to be the easiest country to operate terrorism in, and we get nothing compared to Germany, France or Brittan. There's a lot going on out there that we don't see or hear about that's keeping us safe. I think history will look back on this time and credit GW for doing a lot of things he can't take credit for right now. I'm not saying he should be free from criticism (on the environment especially), I'm not saying at times he doesn't come across as the sharpest knife in the drawer, but unless you had to dodge a road-side bomb on the way to work yesterday, I think a little credit is due to the man.
Oh, and on the topic - I think forcing emmission standards is a great way to start getting the kind of cars we all want on the road. As I said in another thread - don't tax the gas, don't penalize all of us with high prices, change the rules that force auto makers to build different cars.
Also consider this - yes, we have not found Ben-Laden in 5 1/2 years but it's a harder job than most folks can possibly imagine. Also, how many terrorist attacks have occured on American soil since? America has to be the easiest country to operate terrorism in, and we get nothing compared to Germany, France or Brittan. There's a lot going on out there that we don't see or hear about that's keeping us safe. I think history will look back on this time and credit GW for doing a lot of things he can't take credit for right now. I'm not saying he should be free from criticism (on the environment especially), I'm not saying at times he doesn't come across as the sharpest knife in the drawer, but unless you had to dodge a road-side bomb on the way to work yesterday, I think a little credit is due to the man.
Oh, and on the topic - I think forcing emmission standards is a great way to start getting the kind of cars we all want on the road. As I said in another thread - don't tax the gas, don't penalize all of us with high prices, change the rules that force auto makers to build different cars.
Roadside bomb? Who ever heard of one until we got into Iraq?
Teaching in the inner city of LA, the worst (to my mind) insult I heard was not the MF word, but Fool! GWB is a FOOL.
Last edited by centrider; 04-04-2007 at 08:38 AM.
#17
04-04-2007, 10:40 AM
Re: Supremes rule against Bush
lars-ss: Your approach to the idea of carbon dioxide as a pollutant is far too simplistic. As I already pointed out, just because something is 'natural' (however you define that) does not mean it can't pollute. The fact that there are substantial sources of it that we cannot cut back does not have anything to do with the substantial sources that we can cut back. Many things that are excellent, even critical, in moderation become poisonous, dangerous, or otherwise harmful when there is an excess of them. Carbon dioxide is one of those things, and none of the vituperative and thoughtless tautologies you have listed can change the fact that burning fossil fuels that emit so much CO2 is causing a real, urgent problem.
Taking the political tack, the objection to this headline is a little bit ignorant. The Supreme Court did, actually, literally, rule against Bush. The executive branch is, in many ways, synonymous with Bush- that's why it's called the Bush Administration, and the main named defendant in the suit was the Environmental Protection Agency, whose leaders are all Bush appointees and whose policies all come directly from him, since they act under his authority. There's no EPA in the Constitution- its existence stems from the powers of the President. Saying that the Court ruled against Bush is not partisan and it is not 'liberal media bias.' It's a fact.
Taking the political tack, the objection to this headline is a little bit ignorant. The Supreme Court did, actually, literally, rule against Bush. The executive branch is, in many ways, synonymous with Bush- that's why it's called the Bush Administration, and the main named defendant in the suit was the Environmental Protection Agency, whose leaders are all Bush appointees and whose policies all come directly from him, since they act under his authority. There's no EPA in the Constitution- its existence stems from the powers of the President. Saying that the Court ruled against Bush is not partisan and it is not 'liberal media bias.' It's a fact.
#18
04-04-2007, 10:54 AM
Ridiculously Active Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 1,797
Re: Supremes rule against Bush
Q:
Can the EPA levy taxes directly or do they have to go through congress? It seems I remember some kind of controversy over that some years ago. (But I might be mistaken)
If that is so then they have potentially opened a taxation without representation pandora's box.
Can the EPA levy taxes directly or do they have to go through congress? It seems I remember some kind of controversy over that some years ago. (But I might be mistaken)
If that is so then they have potentially opened a taxation without representation pandora's box.
#19
04-04-2007, 11:08 AM
Re: Supremes rule against Bush
In Germany, the Green Party may act as though the only issues are environmental. The Bush Administration seems to be the polar opposite - there is no environmental problem (until lately after much badgering).
I see the Mass v EPA ruling a correction of this administration attempting to do almost nothing on the environment.
I see the Mass v EPA ruling a correction of this administration attempting to do almost nothing on the environment.
#20
04-04-2007, 11:12 AM
Re: Supremes rule against Bush
I am not familiar with the controversy you mention, so I'll just try to answer by explaining a little bit about the origins of the EPA. I hope this is still sufficiently on-topic.
Nixon created the EPA in 1970. There were some Congressional hearings about its structure (Congressman Dingell of Michigan wanted it to be a cabinet-level organization, but that was not supported) and subsequently there have been laws enacted by Congress giving it direction, instruction, responsibility and authority.
http://www.epa.gov/history/org/origins/laws.htm Here's a list of the various laws impacting the EPA- there are many.
But you probably want to know the budget stuff, more than the legislative/regulatory history. Here's the link to their budget office, with this helpful summary:
http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget/index.htm
Nixon created the EPA in 1970. There were some Congressional hearings about its structure (Congressman Dingell of Michigan wanted it to be a cabinet-level organization, but that was not supported) and subsequently there have been laws enacted by Congress giving it direction, instruction, responsibility and authority.
http://www.epa.gov/history/org/origins/laws.htm Here's a list of the various laws impacting the EPA- there are many.
But you probably want to know the budget stuff, more than the legislative/regulatory history. Here's the link to their budget office, with this helpful summary:
http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget/index.htm
For each fiscal year (which runs from October through September), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) develops a proposed budget. The budget defines the goals and objectives towards which the Agency intends to work within the fiscal year and the funding the Agency believes is necessary to accomplish these goals and objectives. This budget is combined with the budgets of the rest of the Executive Branch and is then sent by the President to the Congress (this occurs in the first quarter of the calendar year). The Congress then acts on the various budgets by developing, amending, and, ultimately, passing bills which enact the budgets into law (normally prior to the start of the fiscal year covered by the budget). At this point the enacted budget becomes the blueprint for the Agency’s activities during the next fiscal year.
