Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Again, I think you mis-characterize the bill and its intent. An administrator in the EPA, given the ability to regulate CO2 through regulation could impose regulations on how much you can exhale or impose costs upon you and others as individuals. That is too much power. It is power that would be used selectively. It is power that I think would have political implications more so than true environmental implications. For example, would a favorite industry, i.e., automotive industry, get favored treatment? Why? Again, we need to first have a national policy agreed upon with well defined parameters for regulators.
|
From the H.R.910 discussion draft:
“IN GENERAL: The Administration may not, under this, promulgate any regulation concerning, take actions relating too, or take into consideration the emission of green house gas due to concerns regarding possible climate change”.
http://republicans.energycommerce.ho.../GG_01_xml.pdf
Ace, again, the "intent” behind H.R. 910 aside, the bill takes science of out the equation. It doesn't attempt to alter the way EPA responds to global warming. It doesn't try to curb EPAs power over this issues. The Energy Tax Prevention Act removes global warming for the list of environment problems that the Environment Protection Agency is allowed to attend.
The scope of this action demonstrates that global warming is of no concern to republicans. In fact I heard they want to introduce the Last Judgement as an alternative to climate change in schools.