Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
ace, its really pretty simple.
The bill is a feeble attempt to nullify the '07 Supreme Court decision, which made clear the fact that the EPA not only has the the authority to regulate CO2 emissions, it has the legal obligation to do so.
|
That as a given, there are those who do not want the EPA to have that power.
Do you have any concerns regarding the EPA exercising that power in a manner inconsistent with what is in the best interest of the environment and the country?
What if the next President appointed me as the head of the EPA, would you want me to have the power?
Assuming your answer is no to the last question, how would you want to control the EPA?
Perhaps a more narrow mandate from Congress, with defined minimum and maximum expectations?
As is standard protocol, I do not expect direct responses to my questions. I already know the answers, consider the questions rhetorical. Feel free to go back to the -conservatives don't believe in science - narrative. That makes for much better drama - who really cares about the true merits, pros and cons of legislation.
---------- Post added at 03:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:28 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mantus
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. |
Just to take a moment and look at the semantics in the summary in a nit piky way - why would they use the word "possible" with climate change if they truly wanted to eliminate science for the discussion. Would a better way be to state with clearly worded language that green house gases have no relation to climate change and therefore the EPA has no authority to regulate green house gasses in any attempt to address climate change? I think it is clear that the intent is to restrict the EPA going on a one agency crusade against any and all industries with any type of CO2 footprint. The EPA with that kind of authority can regulate every facet of American life. Regardless of the climate change debate, should one agency have that kind of power in your opinion? That is my first question, after that I would love to go into conservatives and our view of the science.
---------- Post added at 03:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:39 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by urville
Really? I was getting the distinct impression over many discussions and threads that this was actually your go to method of argument.  |
For example in this thread, my initial focus was solely placed on the legislation in question, not ad hominem argument. However, others have consistently directed their responses to me as an individual and not the topical points presented. If you can support your charge, please do.