[quote] WASHINGTON--The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will early next week, possibly as soon as Monday, officially declare carbon dioxide a public danger, a trigger that could mean regulation for emitters across the economy, according to several people close to the matter.
Such an "endangerment" decision is necessary for the EPA to move ahead early next year with new emission standards for cars. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has said it could also mean large emitters such as power stations, cement kilns, crude-oil refineries and chemical plants would have to curb their greenhouse gas output.
The announcement would also give President Barack Obama and his climate envoy negotiating leverage at a global climate summit starting next week in Copenhagen, Denmark and increase pressure on Congress to pass a climate bill that would modify the price of polluting.
While environmentalists celebrate EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases, it has caused many large emitters to cringe at the potential costs of compliance.
According to a preliminary endangerment finding published in April, EPA scientists fear that man-made carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are contributing to a warming of the global climate. Senior EPA officials said in November the agency would likely make a final decision in December around the time of the summit.
Joe Mendelson, Global Warming Policy Director for National Wildlife Federation, said the endangerment decision, would happen at "absolutely the right time."
"With House legislation passed, a bipartisan Senate bill in the works, and strong EPA action a virtual certainty, the president goes to Copenhagen with a very strong hand to play," Mr. Mendelson said.
The EPA declaration would also ratchet up the pressure on U.S. lawmakers to pass legislation that analysts say would cut emissions in a more economically efficient way. Although the House has passed a climate bill, movement of similar legislation in the Senate has faced much more resistance and passage becomes more difficult in an election year.
The EPA's Ms. Jackson and President Obama's energy and climate czar Carol Browner have said they would prefer Congress to take action but are prepared to move ahead in the absence of lawmakers crafting their own law.
Industry experts say the Clean Air Act--under which the EPA is making its endangerment finding--was designed to regulate more regional and localized air pollution, and would be a much more blunt tool than Congress could craft. Critics, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, say the endangerment declaration could spark a cascade of litigation and regulation that could harm the economy.
The EPA, meanwhile, says it would regulate in a sensible way. The agency has already moved forward on two rules that would guide regulation of greenhouse-gas emissions, primarily through a proposal to set the threshold level at 25,000 tons a year and requiring such large emitters to report their emissions.
If the EPA decided to move ahead with emission regulations for stationary sources such as utilities, new rules would likely be in place by 2012 and could set stringent emission standards to require firms to install the best available technology.
Two people close to the matter who met with White House officials earlier this week said one change between the proposed endangerment finding issued earlier this year and the final announcement expected next week is the inclusion of the potential cost to society of no emission regulations.[/quote]
Source here: [url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126003232518778287.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLTopStories[/url]
Keep in mind trees need CO2 to produce oxygen.
A public danger?
That's retarded.
I mean we all know it's an air pollutant, but it's no public danger.
Everyone better learn to stop exhaling fast.
It'll kill us all!
:derp:
EVERYBODY STOP EXHALING TURN OFF ABSOLUTELY ALL FUELED MACHINERY KILL ALL ANIMALS STOP FARTING STOP AL - honestly even though i think we should help out the environment, killing off CO2 and cutting down on CO2 has got to be one of the hardest things for man to do
Next they'll probably say dihydrogen oxide is a poison.
[IMG]http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/7907/globalwarming.png[/IMG]
It's gonna kill us all!
god damm it, now what am i going to do with all this oxygen
[QUOTE=<VET>Jasper;18761123]god damm it, now what am i going to do with all this oxygen[/QUOTE]
Mix it with silicon to make a super rare substance, silicon dioxide.
[QUOTE=benos;18761126][img]http://i10.tinypic.com/4uom4p3.jpg[/img].
EPA! EPA![/QUOTE]
This thread should just end now because nothing can top this post
That is stupid.
Reminds me of those funny cases where they wanted to ban dihydrogen oxide.
Does this mean we have to stop breathing?
[QUOTE=zombieslaya;18761060]Source here: [url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126003232518778287.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLTopStories[/url]
Keep in mind trees need CO2 to produce oxygen.[/QUOTE]
And too much CO2 kills trees. Water is nice until you become water world.
[QUOTE=Mr. Mcguffin;18761802]And too much CO2 kills trees. Water is nice until you become water world.[/QUOTE]
well anything can kill us
ban life it's dangerous
think about the kids
[QUOTE=M_B;18761112]EVERYBODY STOP EXHALING TURN OFF ABSOLUTELY ALL FUELED MACHINERY KILL ALL ANIMALS STOP FARTING STOP AL - honestly even though i think we should help out the environment, killing off CO2 and cutting down on CO2 has got to be one of the hardest things for man to do[/QUOTE]
Cut down every tree and plant.
[QUOTE=Mr. Mcguffin;18761802]"And too much CO2 kills trees."[/QUOTE]
:objection: Only extremely large amounts of CO2 may possibly hinder a plant's growth. These would only be reachable in controlled conditions.
All the greenies are constantly saying how our actions are destroying the planet, we should really take on board what they say about us for once and die right now, for the good of mankind. More CO2? oh dear, that'll make the plants thrive! Since all us humans are evil assholes and hate life of all kinds, I think we should all just stop breathing right now.
...And yet there is still no rock-solid evidence on the existence of "climate change". In 50 years we will all look back on this and laugh, as we now laugh at Y2K.
I should also add that nature is pretty bloody good at sorting out problems. It really isn't a delicate little flower as most people seem to think it is.
We need some CO2 or else we'd be raped by sun rays.
[QUOTE=Flitchaye;18761825]well anything can kill us
ban life it's dangerous
think about the kids[/QUOTE]
what
shut up
we're talking about the over production of certain chemicals
go take your canned rhetoric somewhere else
Hasn't global warming theory been busted already? Through voting by scientists and that hacked email database saying they faked the whole theory?
Public Enemy No1
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VN4zb4LBNqk[/media]
Methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas, and the global community should instead focus on cutting down methane emissions.
CO2 is a danger to human life! Make more mercury gas filled light bulbs!
[QUOTE=BradB;18762018]:objection: Only extremely large amounts of CO2 may possibly hinder a plant's growth. These would only be reachable in controlled conditions.
All the greenies are constantly saying how our actions are destroying the planet, we should really take on board what they say about us for once and die right now, for the good of mankind. More CO2? oh dear, that'll make the plants thrive! Since all us humans are evil assholes and hate life of all kinds, I think we should all just stop breathing right now.
...And yet there is still no rock-solid evidence on the existence of "climate change". In 50 years we will all look back on this and laugh, as we now laugh at Y2K.
I should also add that nature is pretty bloody good at sorting out problems. It really isn't a delicate little flower as most people seem to think it is.[/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw[/media]
:v:
[QUOTE=benos;18761126][img]http://i10.tinypic.com/4uom4p3.jpg[/img].
EPA! EPA![/QUOTE]
God fucking damnit I was going to post that you asshole
Global Warming alarmists are so hyped up over CO2 that they'd rather try to save a frog from a cow's fart than try to tackle water pollution or invasive species.
Yes, messing with the very processes of the Earth will definitely cause some sort of benefit.
If I know only one thing, and just one thing, I know that Geo-Engineering is never, NEVER a good thing.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
