Skip to comments.
EPA moves to regulate smokestack greenhouse gases
AP on Yahoo ^
| 5/13/10
| Matthew Daly - ap
Posted on 05/13/2010 1:35:23 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-68 next last
To: NormsRevenge
Lets move to regulate the EPA.
2
posted on
05/13/2010 1:36:54 PM PDT
by
o_zarkman44
(Elect Chuck Purgason, US Senate, Missouri! http://www.purgasonforsenate.com/)
the rule applies only to large polluters such as power plants, refineries and cement production facilities that collectively are responsible for 70 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.
—
They’ll around to the other 30% soon enough... got to set your priorities, yaknow.. like Obama and the ‘Jobs are #1 priority’ focused like a laser regime..
3
posted on
05/13/2010 1:37:34 PM PDT
by
NormsRevenge
(Semper Fi ... Godspeed .. Monthly Donor Onboard .. Chuck DeVore - CA Senator. Believe.)
4
posted on
05/13/2010 1:37:46 PM PDT
by
NormsRevenge
(Semper Fi ... Godspeed .. Monthly Donor Onboard .. Chuck DeVore - CA Senator. Believe.)
To: o_zarkman44
To: NormsRevenge
" ... a step to limit emissions widely very narrowly blamed for global warming."
6
posted on
05/13/2010 1:38:14 PM PDT
by
knarf
(I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
To: NormsRevenge
Well, now, that's going to jump-start the economy.
/s
To: NormsRevenge
That should’nt result in too much of a problem for these companies. Just mass firings due to expense. All by design of course.
8
posted on
05/13/2010 1:38:42 PM PDT
by
albie
To: NormsRevenge
This problem has a rather simple solution. Do not build or modify facilities. Of course, the EPA will effectively force modifications through other regulations and other forms of coercion. The companies can close facilities and import the fuel or just charge customers if possible.
To: NormsRevenge
The EPA said it is completing a rule requiring large polluters to reduce the amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that they release into the air. Those emissions can exacerbate asthma and other breathing problems. Bullshit. Sulfur dioxide and other real pollutants can exacerbate asthma, but carbon dioxide does no such thing. It feeds plants and that's about it.
10
posted on
05/13/2010 1:39:41 PM PDT
by
xjcsa
(Ridiculing the ridiculous since the day I was born.)
To: Scott from the Left Coast
It will in countries like China, India, and Mexico. Which is what the liberals want.
11
posted on
05/13/2010 1:41:45 PM PDT
by
Proud_USA_Republican
("The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.")
To: NormsRevenge
Hey...WASHINGTON....THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GLOBAL WARMING.
And we are NOT buying your “Climate Change”, “Cap & Trade” OR “AMERICAN POWER ACT” BS...so shove it.
You’ve been found out, we are awake and we’ve had enough!!! Pfffft
12
posted on
05/13/2010 1:43:20 PM PDT
by
Lucky9teen
(I'll just say the 2nd amendment to the Constitution is there for a reason!)
To: NormsRevenge
Carbon dioxide is not associated with causing asthma.
Well, thats not going to slow them down.
13
posted on
05/13/2010 1:43:51 PM PDT
by
corkoman
To: NormsRevenge
14
posted on
05/13/2010 1:54:15 PM PDT
by
rhombus
To: NormsRevenge
Greenhouse gases like, say, water vapor???
15
posted on
05/13/2010 2:01:16 PM PDT
by
beethovenfan
(If Islam is the solution, the "problem" must be freedom.)
To: NormsRevenge
...carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that they release into the air. Those emissions can exacerbate asthma and other breathing problems. Since this EPA ruling is based on total Bravo Sierra, could this not be challenged and correspendingly overturned by the courts (Like that matters to 0 re: FCC)
16
posted on
05/13/2010 2:08:46 PM PDT
by
Drill Thrawl
(Another day, another injury, another step closer. Are you prepared?)
To: NormsRevenge
The EPA is unconstitutional since Article 1 Section 8 does not specifically grant the federal government the power to regulate energy. It needs to be abolished.
17
posted on
05/13/2010 2:11:10 PM PDT
by
Man50D
(Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it! www.FairTaxNation.com)
To: NormsRevenge
Let's look at those numbers again.
The regulatory threshold under the Clean Air Act is 250 tons per year.
EPA said they would "tailor the reg" so that only those companies emitting(or, as some say, spewing) 25,000 tons would be regulated. At the 25,000 ton threshold, about 12,000 companies would be regulated.
Now, they have "tailored" the reg even further and the threshold is 75,000 tons.
To: Drill Thrawl
Since this EPA ruling is based on total Bravo Sierra, could this not be challenged and correspendingly overturned by the courts (Like that matters to 0 re: FCC) You mean the same court that ruled that CO2 is a pollutant and it's emmissions can be regulated by the EPA? Good luck with that.
19
posted on
05/13/2010 2:17:53 PM PDT
by
pgkdan
(I Miss Ronald Reagan!)
To: Man50D
Sure it does.
The magical "Commerce Clause"! It covers EVERYTHING dontchaknow
20
posted on
05/13/2010 2:18:21 PM PDT
by
Drill Thrawl
(Another day, another injury, another step closer. Are you prepared?)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-68 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson