[Solson]

Actually this is already law. Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled last year in a 5-4 decision(Mass v. EPA) that EPA should treat CO2 as a pollutant. Thus, they have the ability regulate without any further legislation.

Cap n' Trade would help offset these regulations which, if law holds up, will be brought down to 250 TONS at each facility. It's called the Prevention of Significant Deterioration(PSD) permits. It's a nasty nasty little piece of regulation.

[TheDon]

Actually this is already law. Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled last year in a 5-4 decision(Mass v. EPA) that EPA should treat CO2 as a pollutant.

We're all polluters now...

[the_Watchman]

Did the Supreme Court make a determination that they “should” treat CO2 as a pollutant or that they “could” treat CO2 as a pollutant. My belief is that the Supreme Court ruled that the determination was left up to the E.P.A. as to the definition of “pollutant”. If this had not been the case, then a court would have had to hold hearings where experts would have testified. I do not believe this happened.

[rickb308]

“Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled last year in a 5-4 decision(Mass v. EPA) that EPA should treat CO2 as a pollutant.”

Wait’ll the libs realize that this will include diet coke.
That pfffft you hear upon opening, yep, CO2. Fountain drinks? Yep, CO2.

[hattend]

BTTT

[GWynand]

I remember it being mentioned that the average person puts out as much as 1-ton CO2 per year. At 25,000 tons could we demand large universities get a permit? Or at 250 tons, every classroom building? Or Congress?