President Obama Announces Plan to Regulate Greenhouses Gases - Without Congress

[BigRob]

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said it would regulate emissions from fossil fuel power plants by 2011 and petroleum refineries by 2012.

President Barack Obama is pushing the EPA to cut emissions after a climate bill failed in Congress this year

It looks like legislation to do this has failed, but President Obama is making a move to do it anyway.

Once the new Congress comes into session, the EPA should immediately be stripped of the funding to carry this out. This is a much more likely scenario of getting the President's signature on changes under the Congressional Review Act.

This is an issue that Republicans should jump on, not only for the obvious political advantages, but also because it the President should not be able to establish such a system without Congressional support, and such a measure would arguably be detrimental to the economy.

 

[dahermit]

It looks like legislation to do this has failed, but President Obama is making a move to do it anyway.

Once the new Congress comes into session, the EPA should immediately be stripped of the funding to carry this out. This is a much more likely scenario of getting the President's signature on changes under the Congressional Review Act.

This is an issue that Republicans should jump on, not only for the obvious political advantages, but also because it the President should not be able to establish such a system without Congressional support, and such a measure would arguably be detrimental to the economy.

I am more concerned with the other pollutant emissions (other than Carbon Dioxide), which are more of an immediate health risk concern. Talk of " stripped [ing] of the funding...", of the EPA is not something I would support.

 

[Rick]

Obozo is a statist - pure and simple. Like all statists, he has contempt for democracy. He imagines he knows better than normal people what's good for them.

 

[BigRob]

I am more concerned with the other pollutant emissions (other than Carbon Dioxide), which are more of an immediate health risk concern. Talk of " stripped [ing] of the funding...", of the EPA is not something I would support.

I would not want to strip the funding of the entire EPA, that is unrealistic.. they can however strip funding for certain programs, which means Congress can end this program without really altering the EPA as a whole... something that is far more practical.

 

[dogtowner]

epa got smacked down once for this by the courts, they'll get it again unless Congress gets t it first.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

It looks like legislation to do this has failed, but President Obama is making a move to do it anyway.

Once the new Congress comes into session, the EPA should immediately be stripped of the funding to carry this out. This is a much more likely scenario of getting the President's signature on changes under the Congressional Review Act.

This is an issue that Republicans should jump on, not only for the obvious political advantages, but also because it the President should not be able to establish such a system without Congressional support, and such a measure would arguably be detrimental to the economy.

yes we can't just let the EPA run off preventing pollution and Green house gases...its not good for business...

 

[BigRob]

yes we can't just let the EPA run off preventing pollution and Green house gases...its not good for business...

The point remains that it is not within the authority of the EPA to order such changes. That power resides (at least it is supposed to) with Congress..hopefully Congress is willing to have the fight over this issue.

What is the point of Congress if we are just going to allow ourselves to be dictated to by the Executive Branch?

 

[Rick]

The point remains that it is not within the authority of the EPA to order such changes. That power resides (at least it is supposed to) with Congress..hopefully Congress is willing to have the fight over this issue.

What is the point of Congress if we are just going to allow ourselves to be dictated to by the Executive Branch?

You're trying to talk constitutionalism to tree stumps - they don't get it.

 

[Rick]

The point remains that it is not within the authority of the EPA to order such changes. That power resides (at least it is supposed to) with Congress..hopefully Congress is willing to have the fight over this issue.

What is the point of Congress if we are just going to allow ourselves to be dictated to by the Executive Branch?

You're trying to talk constitutionalism to tree stumps - they don't get it. If the EPA gets away with this, there will be more power grabs by the executive branch. They'll use the leftwing incrementalism approach, with the EPA over time controlling everything about energy generation, cars, power plants, what is produced and consumed, land use, etc etc, with all the country's dunces becoming ever more accustomed to the heretofore radical view of itself by the EPA that it should be a government within a government.

 

[Apathy]

Obozo is a statist - pure and simple. Like all statists, he has contempt for democracy. He imagines he knows better than normal people what's good for them.

I have contempt for democracy and all true patriots should.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

The point remains that it is not within the authority of the EPA to order such changes. That power resides (at least it is supposed to) with Congress..hopefully Congress is willing to have the fight over this issue.

What is the point of Congress if we are just going to allow ourselves to be dictated to by the Executive Branch?

if the power to regulate pollution and greenhouse gas is not part of the EPA's authority, then it has no authority on the one of the most important things it was made to do...protect the environment. you may as well strip it of everything till we look like Mexico City

 

[Rick]

if the power to regulate pollution and greenhouse gas is not part of the EPA's authority, then it has no authority on the one of the most important things it was made to do...protect the environment. you may as well strip it of everything till we look like Mexico City

The EPA was created to protect the country from air, water, and land pollution. Air pollution is particulates or gasses harmful to humans or property, eg sulfur or nitrous oxides, which cause disease in humans. CO2 doesn't do this - it has no effect on humans or property - it clearly was not what was intended to be within the EPA charter. Like obozo's requirement that people buy insurance, this ruling is an opening wedge, which if allowed to stand would allow anything that exists to be controlled by the unelected EPA by calling it "pollution".

 

[pocketfullofshells]

The EPA was created to protect the country from air, water, and land pollution. Air pollution is particulates or gasses harmful to humans or property, eg sulfur or nitrous oxides, which cause disease in humans. CO2 doesn't do this - it has no effect on humans or property - it clearly was not what was intended to be within the EPA charter. Like obozo's requirement that people buy insurance, this ruling is an opening wedge, which if allowed to stand would allow anything that exists to be controlled by the unelected EPA by calling it "pollution".

go run your car in the garage with the door closed...show me its not harmful to humans,,,

also last time I checked...completely destroying the earths ecosystem...sorta dangerous to Americans health...Also its a national security issue, the Pentagon has reported on this as well.

 

[dogtowner]

go run your car in the garage with the door closed...show me its not harmful to humans,,,

also last time I checked...completely destroying the earths ecosystem...sorta dangerous to Americans health...Also its a national security issue, the Pentagon has reported on this as well.

thats carbon monoxide that kills you, but breathing too much carbon dioxide is not great as you need the oxygen to exhale your own carbon dioxide.

 

[BigRob]

if the power to regulate pollution and greenhouse gas is not part of the EPA's authority, then it has no authority on the one of the most important things it was made to do...protect the environment. you may as well strip it of everything till we look like Mexico City

The EPA derives its authority from Congress and the laws they pass. With the failure of a climate bill being passed, the EPA is deriving this authority from a procedural vote in the Senate and the Judicial system.

I see no problem with Congress removing the EPA's ability to carry this plan out when the new session begins, because ultimately, what authority the EPA has rests with Congress... they need to reassert themselves.