Thanks Dick (Head shot)
Ford or Carter would have probably backed you up anyway-...
Posted on 12/27/2010 9:59:47 AM PST by EBH
On December 23, 2010, the EPA issued a series of rules that put the necessary regulatory framework in place to ensure that industrial facilities can get Clean Air Act (CAA) permits covering their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions when needed and ensure that facilities emitting GHGs at levels below those established in the Tailoring Rule do not need to obtain CAA permits.
The agency says these actions will ensure that the largest industrial facilities can get CAA permits that cover GHG emissions beginning in January 2011. These actions are part of EPA’s common sense approach to GHG permitting outlined in the spring 2010 Tailoring Rule.
The first set of actions will give EPA authority to permit GHGs in seven states (Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Oregon, and Wyoming) until the state or local agencies can revise their permitting regulations to cover these emissions. EPA is taking additional steps to disapprove part of Texas’ CAA permitting program and the agency will also issue GHG permits to facilities in the state. These actions will ensure that large industrial facilities will be able to receive permits for GHG emissions regardless of where they are located.
In the second set of actions, EPA has issued final rules that will ensure that there are no federal laws in place that require any state to issue a permit for GHG emissions below levels outlined in the tailoring rule.
EPA has worked closely with the states to ensure that the transition to permitting for GHGs is smooth. States are best suited to issue permits to sources of GHG emissions and have experience working with industrial facilities. EPA will continue to work with states to help develop, submit, and obtain approval of the necessary revisions to enable the affected states to issue air permits to GHG-emitting sources.
Beginning in January 2011, industries that are large emitters of GHGs, and that are planning to build new facilities or make major modifications to existing ones, must obtain air permits and implement energy efficiency measures or, where available, cost-effective technology to reduce their GHGs emissions. This includes the nation’s largest GHG emitters, such as power plants, refineries, and cement production facilities. Emissions from small sources, such as farms and restaurants, are not covered by these GHG permitting requirements.
There won't be one. Just like there wasn't in Russia, China, Cambodia, Venezuela, and so many other places that went down into totalitarian tyranny, often aiding and abetting the tyranny because too many thought there was something in it for them. It' was a death of a thousand cuts: never one large enough to trigger actions, but all together achieve the same end.
America -- a great idea, didn't last.
It's been underway for a long, long time. This is only the beginning of the end.
Sorry to say it this way...
...but the elections mean nothing, they are just a sham for the people.
IF all that energy had been directed at the agencies and bureaucrats, perhaps we could turn this mess back.
But...as long as we stay focused on the little minds in congress...we doom ourselves to the tyranny.
Elections no longer have consequences.
Defunding is defending. You don't kill a dandelion by running a mower over it or refusing to give it fertilizer. You kill it by tearing the d*mned thing out by the roots.
You are exactly correct.
On April 2, 2007, the Supreme Court found that GHGs, including carbon dioxide, are air
pollutants covered by the CAA. Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007).
Wow...moved to blogger..
how very sad for FR.
And to boot you booted me off my log in...gee
was that a zot warning too.
How sad for FR
“Followed closely by the defunding of the Department of Education and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.”
I LIKE the way you think! A+++++
Van Jones: “The way that you get clean energy up in your country, and get the innovation up in your country, and get the jobs up in your country is to push down on the dirty stuff. Okay? To get the clean stuff up you got to push down on the dirty stuff.
“There’s only three ways to do that. [Ed. note: “Top down, bottom up, inside out”] You either regulate the dirty polluters real hard. Regulation. You tax ‘em real hard. Carbon tax. Or you make them buy permits for all that stuff they’re putting up in the air. Those are your only three options. Regulate them hard. Tax them hard. Make them buy permits. Make ‘em buy permits, that’s called cap and trade.
You want to know how the EPA was established?
These fed agencies are Treaty based. That is how they have gained jurisdiction and the power to regulate sans Congress.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Becraft/larry.htm
More ref data from a previous posting:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2646907/posts
U.S. EPA’s new rules for power plants, refineries and other large industrial facilities will “deprive Texas of its right to manage its air resources,” the state says in a petition filed last week with the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The plea to the New Orleans-based court, which has jurisdiction over Texas but doesn’t usually review challenges to Clean Air Act programs, is the state’s last-ditch effort to stop the regulations from taking effect in two weeks.
Petition (PDF)(29 PAGES)
http://www.eenews.net/assets/2010/12/20/document_gw_01.pdf
court filing Friday, the Obama administration urged the 5th Circuit to throw out Perry’s new petition, saying that the D.C. Circuit is responsible for weighing these types of requests. Texas’ request is “an improper attempt to re-litigate before this court its unsuccessful arguments,” the Justice Department argued in its response.
Court Filing
(PDF)(26 PAGES)
http://www.eenews.net/assets/2010/12/20/document_gw_02.pdf
Source:
EPA: Texas seeks home-court edge in bid to block climate rules
http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2010/12/20/2
Possibly Related
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Opinions
Released on December 21, 2010
Argued September 17, 2010 Decided December 21, 2010
NATIONAL PETROCHEMICAL & REFINERS ASSOCIATION,PETITIONER v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, RESPONDENT
(PDF)(40 PAGES)
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/201012/10-1070-1284126.pdf
Source:
http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/bin/opinions/allopinions.asp
Ping
Court won’t block EPA climate regulations
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2642011/posts
The Obama administration scored a legal victory Friday when a federal appeals court refused to block federal climate regulations slated to kick in next month.
State and industry challengers opposing the Environmental Protection Agency’s climate regulations had asked the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to halt the rules while the massive court battle plays out, but the court wasn’t convinced.
A host of states, industry groups and free-market groups are suing EPA over its regulations aimed at curbing greenhouse gases from automobiles and large industrial sources like power plants and oil refineries, as well as the so-called endangerment finding underpinning the rules.
David Doniger, a Natural Resources Defense Council attorney representing environmental groups in the case, said the decision is a sign that the “industry and state case against the regulations is pretty flimsy.”
Legal eagles out there? Fill us in, Please.
Says it’s in News/Activism on my screen.
Just LOOK at #36 and #37 above, on either side of you somber announcement!!!
Scory, You forgot to mention “Food Safety” which will control our food supply.
Scary times.
Perhaps 10 years after the mile-high glaciers have covered New York.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.