APP - States sue over EPA CO2 ruling

TinfoilTeabagger's own Article, the number of states taking the side of EPA outnumbers the number of states suing EPA by over a five-to-one ratio. :

Three States Sue EPA Over Global Warming Ruling: Texas, Alabama and Virginia, all led by Republican governors

Fighting back on behalf of the EPA is a coalition of 16 states and New York City, arguing that without regulations, climate change will adversely affect them.
Click to expand...



Enjoy your LOLZ!, while you can, Tinhead. I ain’t no rocket scientist, but I know environmental law…. and these three teabagging states are going to get totally smoked in the court room.

You may commence and continue with your teabagging scientific and legal ignorance…. toodles.
 
Cypress said:
TinfoilTeabagger's own Article, the number of states taking the side of EPA outnumbers the number of states suing EPA by over a five-to-one ratio. :

Three States Sue EPA Over Global Warming Ruling: Texas, Alabama and Virginia, all led by Republican governors

Fighting back on behalf of the EPA is a coalition of 16 states and New York City, arguing that without regulations, climate change will adversely affect them.
Click to expand...


Enjoy your LOLZ!, while you can, Tinhead. I ain’t no rocket scientist, but I know environmental law…. and these three teabagging states are going to get totally smoked in the court room.

You may commence and continue with your teabagging scientific and legal ignorance…. toodles.
Click to expand...

:good4u:
 
"Those states are: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington."

Who wants to bet that the above states (or at least the majority) get the bulk of their energy from nat gas or nuclear plants? You know, the ones that will benefit from the cap and trade scheme?

Add in the fact that the global warming fear mongers are seeing their case fall apart...

yeah... I doubt the EPA wins this one. This is not their decision to make. It is up to the legislature.
 
Cypress said:
TinfoilTeabagger's own Article, the number of states taking the side of EPA outnumbers the number of states suing EPA by over a five-to-one ratio. :





Enjoy your LOLZ!, while you can, Tinhead. I ain’t no rocket scientist, but I know environmental law…. and these three teabagging states are going to get totally smoked in the court room.

You may commence and continue with your teabagging scientific and legal ignorance…. toodles.
Click to expand...

Golly! You mean govs are salivating at the thought of taxing CO2?
Color me suprised.

You are such a government tool.

No duh they support it. It's easy money. That's my whole fucking point you stupid fucking idiot
 
Superfreak said:
"Those states are: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington."

Who wants to bet that the above states (or at least the majority) get the bulk of their energy from nat gas or nuclear plants? You know, the ones that will benefit from the cap and trade scheme?

Add in the fact that the global warming fear mongers are seeing their case fall apart...

yeah... I doubt the EPA wins this one. This is not their decision to make. It is up to the legislature.
Click to expand...

Instead of insinuation, why don't YOU provide the facts to substantiate your assertions?
 
Superfreak said:
"Those states are: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington."

Who wants to bet that the above states (or at least the majority) get the bulk of their energy from nat gas or nuclear plants? You know, the ones that will benefit from the cap and trade scheme?

Add in the fact that the global warming fear mongers are seeing their case fall apart...

yeah... I doubt the EPA wins this one. This is not their decision to make. It is up to the legislature.
Click to expand...

With regard to these states energy consumption, it sounds like you're just guessing. I can't respond to guesses and speculations.

With regard to the law, sorry man, you’ve been duped yet again by the Rightwing blogs.

The Legislature has already authorized the USEPA to regulate any and all pollutants that pose a reasonable risk to human health, or the public welfare. I'm guessing maybe you've never heard of the clean air act.

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled EPA has authority to regulate greenhouse gases. It’s EPA’s job, as an executive branch agency, to enforce the law. They don’t just make up shit as they go along. They are an enforcement agency. Just as it is Department of Justice’s job to enforce the laws passed by congress. That’s their job, to enforce laws that are on the books. DOJ and EPA (or any executive agency) can be sued if they DON”T enforce the laws that are passed by the legislature and signed by the President. That’s Soviet Union crap where government agencies can just ignore rules and laws whenever they want to.

If you want to overturn or modify the clean air act, that’s fine. But, you can’t pass a law and then tell the executive branch not to enforce it. But the Supreme Court has directed USEPA to enforce the clean air act, and that they do not have the choice or option to simply sidestep their executive authority to enforce the law.

Like I said, these three teabagging states are going to get absolutely smoked if their lawsuit ever sees the inside of a courtroom. Personally, I think this is political grandstanding and roadblocking, and these teabaggers know they can’t win inside the courtroom.

Supreme Court Rules that EPA has the Authority to Regulate Greenhouse Emissions

April 3, 2007

WASHINGTON, April 2 — In one of its most important environmental decisions in years, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases in automobile emissions. The court further ruled that the agency could not sidestep its authority to regulate the greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change unless it could provide a scientific basis for its refusal.

The 5-to-4 decision was a strong rebuke to the Bush administration, which has maintained that it does not have the right to regulate carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases under the Clean Air Act, and that even if it did, it would not use the authority. The ruling does not force the environmental agency to regulate auto emissions, but it would almost certainly face further legal action if it failed to do so.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/washington/03scotus.html
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
With regard to these states energy consumption, it sounds like you're just guessing. I can't respond to guesses and speculations.

With regard to the law, sorry man, you’ve been duped yet again by the Rightwing blogs.

The Legislature has already authorized the USEPA to regulate any and all pollutants that pose a reasonable risk to human health, or the public welfare. I'm guessing maybe you've never heard of the clean air act.

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled EPA has authority to regulate greenhouse gases. It’s EPA’s job, as an executive branch agency, to enforce the law. They don’t just make up shit as they go along. They are an enforcement agency. Just as it is Department of Justice’s job to enforce the laws passed by congress. That’s their job, to enforce laws that are on the books. DOJ and EPA (or any executive agency) can be sued if they DON”T enforce the laws that are passed by the legislature and signed by the President. That’s Soviet Union crap where government agencies can just ignore rules and laws whenever they want to.

If you want to overturn or modify the clean air act, that’s fine. But, you can’t pass a law and then tell the executive branch not to enforce it. But the Supreme Court has directed USEPA to enforce the clean air act, and that they do not have the choice or option to simply sidestep their executive authority to enforce the law.

Like I said, these three teabagging states are going to get absolutely smoked if their lawsuit ever sees the inside of a courtroom. Personally, I think this is political grandstanding and roadblocking, and these teabaggers know they can’t win inside the courtroom.
Click to expand...

HE SHOOTS, HE SCORES!
 
tinfoil said:
Golly! You mean govs are salivating at the thought of taxing CO2?
Color me suprised.

You are such a government tool.

No duh they support it. It's easy money. That's my whole fucking point you stupid fucking idiot
Click to expand...

What are you laughing at? Do you realize that these states are fighting to CONTINUE levels of industrial pollution?

Get it together, chuckles....THINK IT THROUGH!
 
Taichiliberal said:
What are you laughing at? Do you realize that these states are fighting to CONTINUE levels of industrial pollution?

Get it together, chuckles....THINK IT THROUGH!
Click to expand...
You dolt, I'm talking about CO2 being classified as a pollutant. Get the argument straight. If you want to talk about OTHER pollutants, fine, but as far as CO2 goes, it's not a god damned pollutant. It's one of the basic elements of life! It has failed to create the dangerous forcing predicted. Shall we go back and look at the IPCC predictions from a decade ago? Please do! I'm sure you'll ignore the fact that todays temp is outside their predicted range.
 
Taichiliberal said:
What are you laughing at? Do you realize that these states are fighting to CONTINUE levels of industrial pollution?

Get it together, chuckles....THINK IT THROUGH!
Click to expand...
tinfoil said:
You dolt, I'm talking about CO2 being classified as a pollutant. Get the argument straight. If you want to talk about OTHER pollutants, fine, but as far as CO2 goes, it's not a god damned pollutant. It's one of the basic elements of life! It has failed to create the dangerous forcing predicted. Shall we go back and look at the IPCC predictions from a decade ago? Please do! I'm sure you'll ignore the fact that todays temp is outside their predicted range.
Click to expand...

What's the pollutant that you're scared of, Libby?
 
tinfoil said:
You dolt, I'm talking about CO2 being classified as a pollutant. Get the argument straight. If you want to talk about OTHER pollutants, fine, but as far as CO2 goes, it's not a god damned pollutant. It's one of the basic elements of life! It has failed to create the dangerous forcing predicted. Shall we go back and look at the IPCC predictions from a decade ago? Please do! I'm sure you'll ignore the fact that todays temp is outside their predicted range.
Click to expand...

You’re way, way out of your league Cupcake

You’ve been reading too many obscure rightwing blogs. How do I know this? Because teabaggers universally have “suddenly” latched on with a death grip, to the talking point that because CO2 is natural, it can’t possibly be a pollutant.

Here’s a tip: Any chemical compound can be legally classified as a pollutant if human activities cause them to (1) become elevated above ambient natural background conditions; and (2) if the preponderance of scientific evidence shows that, at these levels, they reasonably can pose a risk to either human health, or the public welfare.

That applies to dissolved oxygen, to nitrogen, and to phosphorus. All of which are naturally occurring compounds, and all of which can be elevated by human activities to harmful levels. All of which have been classified as pollutants, if elevated by human activities beyond certain thresholds.

Here’s something else your obscure rightwing blogs didn’t tell you. Environmental law is not like criminal law. Scientists don’t have to prove with 100% certainty, or beyond all reasonable doubt that a substance that is being elevated by humans poses a public risk. All they have to do is show that the preponderance of evidence reasonably shows that it is a risk to the public welfare. Virtually the only time public policy requires something approximating absolute certainty is when we are going to send someone to the electric chair, or deprive them of life or liberty. Otherwise, public policy is supposed to be based on risk-management, and on the basis of the preponderance of evidence.

You have a habit of providing nothing but rightwing blogs, British tabloids, and blathering about some vast global conspiracy of liberal scientists.

On the other hand – and in stark contrast – pretty much every single reputable and internationally recognized scientific organization with expertise in climate science has concurred and concluded that emissions of greenhouse gases associated with human activities has a high probability of risk to the planet and to public welfare.

As for me, the preponderance of evidence and the choice is clear when I’m presented with these two choices: 1)Tinfoil-Bravo-Meme-Dixie-and Some Rightwing Blogs; versus 2) The overwhelming consensus of the world’s most qualified climate scientists and international scientific organizations.
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
You’re way, way out of your league Cupcake

You’ve been reading too many obscure rightwing blogs. How do I know this? Because teabaggers universally have “suddenly” latched on with a death grip, to the talking point that because CO2 is natural, it can’t possibly be a pollutant.

Here’s a tip: Any chemical compound can be legally classified as a pollutant if human activities cause them to (1) become elevated above ambient natural background conditions; and (2) if the preponderance of scientific evidence shows that, at these levels, they reasonably can pose a risk to either human health, or the public welfare.

That applies to dissolved oxygen, to nitrogen, and to phosphorus. All of which are naturally occurring compounds, and all of which can be elevated by human activities to harmful levels. All of which have been classified as pollutants, if elevated by human activities beyond certain thresholds.

Here’s something else your obscure rightwing blogs didn’t tell you. Environmental law is not like criminal law. Scientists don’t have to prove with 100% certainty, or beyond all reasonable doubt that a substance that is being elevated by humans poses a public risk. All they have to do is show that the preponderance of evidence reasonably shows that it is a risk to the public welfare. Virtually the only time public policy requires something approximating absolute certainty is when we are going to send someone to the electric chair, or deprive them of life or liberty. Otherwise, public policy is supposed to be based on risk-management, and on the basis of the preponderance of evidence.

You have a habit of providing nothing but rightwing blogs, British tabloids, and blathering about some vast global conspiracy of liberal scientists.

On the other hand – and in stark contrast – pretty much every single reputable and internationally recognized scientific organization with expertise in climate science has concurred and concluded that emissions of greenhouse gases associated with human activities has a high probability of risk to the planet and to public welfare.

As for me, the preponderance of evidence and the choice is clear when I’m presented with these two choices: 1)Tinfoil-Bravo-Meme-Dixie-and Some Rightwing Blogs; versus 2) The overwhelming consensus of the world’s most qualified climate scientists and international scientific organizations.
Click to expand...

Isn't water vapor more of a greenhouse gas that CO2? We should then regulate water, no?
 
Southern Man said:
Isn't water vapor more of a greenhouse gas that CO2? We should then regulate water, no?
Click to expand...

Nice! Haha, a scientifically-illiterate teabagger chimes in from the peanut gallery, not even daring to question the content of my post, but simply tossing out some diversionary “factoid” they read on some rightwing blog.

If you’re truly interested in informing yourself on the topic (which I doubt you are), read my post carefully. An educated person, with an ability to comprehend, can easily separate out the criteria I listed, in terms of legally defining a pollutant.

CO2 is a direct result of direct human emissions.

Water vapor, is to a large degree, a consequence of higher temperatures associated with human-induced climate change. In short, human industry aren’t directly spewing gigatons of water vapor into the atmosphere. Increased water vapor is, in large measure, from increased evaporation – i.e., a consequence (potentially) of other direct human emissions that impact the climate. Bottom line, dummy: we regulate direct human sources of pollution - not the consequences of pollution. It is assumed that controlling the actual anthropogenic controllable sources will mitigate the consequences.

Take off your teabag hat and think. Controlling the controllable sources of pollution can mitigate the environmental consequences associated with those controllable human emissions.


Your education is over. I doubt you even care to be informed, but you may carry on chirping in from the peanut gallery with your rightwing blog “factoids” if you get giggles from doing so. Carry on.
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
Nice! Haha, a scientifically-illiterate teabagger chimes in from the peanut gallery, not even daring to question the content of my post, but simply tossing out some diversionary “factoid” they read on some rightwing blog.

If you’re truly interested in informing yourself on the topic (which I doubt you are), read my post carefully. An educated person, with an ability to comprehend, can easily separate out the criteria I listed, in terms of legally defining a pollutant.

CO2 is a direct result of direct human emissions.

Water vapor, is to a large degree, a consequence of higher temperatures associated with human-induced climate change. In short, human industry aren’t directly spewing gigatons of water vapor into the atmosphere. Increased water vapor is, in large measure, from increased evaporation – i.e., a consequence (potentially) of other direct human emissions that impact the climate. Bottom line, dummy: we regulate direct human sources of pollution - not the consequences of pollution. It is assumed that controlling the actual anthropogenic controllable sources will mitigate the consequences.

Take off your teabag hat and think. Controlling the controllable sources of pollution can mitigate the environmental consequences associated with those controllable human emissions.


Your education is over. I doubt you even care to be informed, but you may carry on chirping in from the peanut gallery with your rightwing blog “factoids” if you get giggles from doing so. Carry on.
Click to expand...

Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas, 2.3 times more than CO2.

How do large buildings in every city keep cool during the summer? Have you ever heard of evaporative cooling?

How about irrigation for farming? How much water vapor is given off?

What gives off more water vapor per acre, and ocean or a forest?

Along with CO2, water vapor is a product of complete combustion of hydrocarbon fuels, even when using fuel cells. Water vapor is the sole byproduct of complete combustion of hydrogen fuels, that is if we ignore the pollutant oxygen.

I assume that you know how to use Google so I'll wait patiently for your response. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top