Do tell! Well today we have more insanity from the Obama administration. Just before going to Copenhagen he does something to get a feather in his hat. Since they haven’t even started on the Cap & Trade bill yet Obama needed something before the Climate Summit at Copenhagen. So as if we didn’t know CO2 is hazardous to our health. Duh! Just another way to kill any recovery of the economy and small businesses. Who’s side is this man on?
Obama and crew will not wait for the outcome of Copenhagen or the passage of the Waxman-Markey climate bill, predicted for 2010 at the earliest. Obama will declare carbon dioxide a dangerous pollutant this week.
We exhale carbon dioxide. Does that mean that we will have to register with the government as being a polluting entity? Plants grow faster with more co2 and they need less water and can stand higher temperatures. What is amazing is that co2 compared to all other gases in the atmosphere only comprises .054% of the all gasses available. (That’s 45 thousandths of 1%)
The Environmental Protection Agency has declared carbon dioxide dangerous (duh!) and this will probably result in the government requiring businesses that emit carbon dioxide and five other “greenhouse gases” to make costly changes in machinery to reduce emissions. Congress need not be consulted and no law need be enacted.
An EPA “endangerment finding” would allow the federal agency to use the federal Clean Air Act to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions.
EPA action would signal to the United Nations, the Copenhagen globalists and their phalanx of NGOs that Obama is serious about eliminating carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and sending western civilization back to the Dark Ages.
Business Fumes Over Carbon Dioxide Rule by EPA
An “endangerment” finding by the Environmental Protection Agency could pave the way for the government to require businesses that emit carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases to make costly changes in machinery to reduce emissions — even if Congress doesn’t pass pending climate-change legislation. EPA action to regulate emissions could affect the U.S. economy more directly, and more quickly, than any global deal inked in the Danish capital, where no binding agreement is expected.
Many business groups are opposed to EPA efforts to curb a gas as ubiquitous as carbon dioxide.
China’s factory chimneys pour out smoke in Shanghai, China.Despite a global economic slump, worldwide carbon dioxide pollution jumped 2 percent last year, most of it from China, new figures show. (AP Photo/Eugene Hoshiko, File)
An EPA endangerment finding “could result in a top-down command-and-control regime that will choke off growth by adding new mandates to virtually every major construction and renovation project,” U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue said in a statement. “The devil will be in the details, and we look forward to working with the government to ensure we don’t stifle our economic recovery,” he said, noting that the group supports federal legislation.
EPA action won’t do much to combat climate change, and “is certain to come at a huge cost to the economy,” said the National Association of Manufacturers, a trade group that stands as a proxy for U.S. industry.
EPA action would give President Barack Obama something to show leaders from other nations when he attends the Copenhagen conference on Dec. 18 and tries to persuade them that the U.S. is serious about cutting its contribution to global greenhouse-gas emissions.
The oil industry has warned that climate legislation could force some U.S. refineries to shut down, because importing gasoline from countries without emission caps could be cheaper than making the gasoline on domestic soil.
The issue of how curbing emissions would affect jobs in developed countries (like India & China which are the worse polluters) is likely to erupt in Copenhagen in the battle over how much rich countries should pony up for cleaner technologies in developing nations.(again like India & China~spreading the wealth)
The vast majority of increased greenhouse-gas emissions is expected to come from developing countries such as China and India, not from rich countries like the U.S. But developing countries have made it clear that their willingness to reduce growth in emissions will depend on what rich countries do first. That puts a geopolitical spotlight on the U.S.