• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Three States Sue EPA Over Global Warming Ruling

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,705
Reaction score
17,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Hopefully a judge puts these environmental religious nuts/epa in their place.

FOXNews.com - Three States Sue EPA Over Global Warming Ruling

The bitterly contested fight in Washington over global warming and pollution is also taking hold at the state level.

The Environmental Protection Agency, which is threatening to regulate carbon emissions if Congress won’t, is facing legal heat from states that say new regulations will kill jobs at the worst possible time.

Texas, Alabama and Virginia, all led by Republican governors, have filed petitions since December, when the EPA ruled that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide endanger human health, clearing the path for the agency to issue mandatory regulations to reduce them.

As the EPA grapples with the lawsuits, Congress is trying to block the agency from acting without congressional approval. Sen. John Rockefeller, D-W.Va., introduced legislation Thursday calling for a two-year suspension of potential EPA regulations.

Rockefeller and other lawmakers from coal mining states oppose the EPA's plan to target power plants and other industrial facilities.

The EPA already agreed, after Rockefeller complained last month, to delay phasing in its regulations until the end of the year. But that hasn't satisfied global warming skeptics.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli said last month the finding could "create a staggering burden" on the state.

"Put into effect, the finding would a place a crushing burden on jobs and the economy of Virginia," he said. "And while some parts of Virginia would be hit harder than others, every Virginian would take an economic beating if this goes forward."

He added: "While we're open to seeing where honest, unbiased science leads us in the climate policy arena, we're not prepared to stand by while EPA proceeds to implement jobs-destroying regulations based on unverifiable and unrepeatable so-called science."

Texas Gov. Rick Perry said the finding would usher in a new era that would destroy his state's ability to provide energy to the rest of the world. Stacked with oil refining and other industries, Texas is the top carbon dioxide emitter in the country and would be heavily affected if mandatory emissions reductions go into effect.

"They're using sweeping mandates, Draconian punishments to force a square peg of their vision into the round hole of reality," he said. "In the process, they're preparing to undo decades of progress while painting hardworking entrepreneurs as selfish and destroying hundreds of thousands of jobs in the process."

The EPA has responded to the lawsuits with a statement saying the "evidence of and threats posed by a changing climate are right before our eyes."

"EPA is proceeding with common sense measures that are helping to protect Americans from this threat while moving America into a leadership position in the 21st century green economy," the statement read. "Unfortunately, special interest and other defenders of the status quo are now turning to the courts in an attempt to stall progress. ...
 
"Moving America into a leadership position in the 21st Century green economy?"

Who are they joking? If The Economist is anything to go by, most efforts to make the "green economy" go has failed.
 
1) Develop battery technology to the point where electric vehicles are feasible.

2) Nuclear power plants. Lots of them

3) Laugh at how we all used to be scared that we'd run out of fossil fuels and actually argued about carbon dioxide.
 
Do the far-rights in this thread realize it was the Supreme Court that said EPA (under Bush) could take action on CO2 emissions?

This was back in 2007.

Google EPA vs Mass.

The 5-4 decision said carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases emitted from tailpipes are "air pollutants" covered by the Clean Air Act of 1970 -- rebuffing the Environmental Agency's view that it lacked authority to regulate those emissions. And though the court stopped short of ordering the EPA to set mandatory limits, the justices rejected the Bush administration's claim that voluntary programs were an effective substitute.
 
"Moving America into a leadership position in the 21st Century green economy?"

Who are they joking? If The Economist is anything to go by, most efforts to make the "green economy" go has failed.
This has Van Jones all over it.
 
1) Develop battery technology to the point where electric vehicles are feasible.

2) Nuclear power plants. Lots of them

3) Laugh at how we all used to be scared that we'd run out of fossil fuels and actually argued about carbon dioxide.
And what do you do with the battery waste? ;)
 
Do the far-rights in this thread realize it was the Supreme Court that said EPA (under Bush) could take action on CO2 emissions?

This was back in 2007.

Google EPA vs Mass.
And the word "action" can have many meanings.
 
And what do you do with the battery waste? ;)

That depends on the nature of the battery. Our current technology is insufficient to do it economically. We'll need something new.
 
That depends on the nature of the battery. Our current technology is insufficient to do it economically. We'll need something new.
The waste is hazardous.
 
That depends on the nature of the battery. Our current technology is insufficient to do it economically. We'll need something new.

Why stop at batteries? Why not move to personal fusion power systems?

Think about it, if we all just had small, portable fusion generators, we could power our homes, our cars, our offices! Why we'd be green and energy independant!!!
 
What a surprise that those state suing have Republican governors. :doh Not a surprise that they're more worried about profits than the environment.

This is funny:
Texas Gov. Rick Perry said the finding would usher in a new era that would destroy his state's ability to provide energy to the rest of the world. Stacked with oil refining and other industries, Texas is the top carbon dioxide emitter in the country and would be heavily affected if mandatory emissions reductions go into effect.

It's interesting to see Gov. Perry worried about "providing energy to the rest of the world". :mrgreen:

It's emissions from states like Texas that have killed many lakes in the Adirondack Park, in upstate New York. The EPA is the only group that can force these states to take actions so their "second hand smoke" doesn't choke other states, in effect.
 
Do the far-rights in this thread realize it was the Supreme Court that said EPA (under Bush) could take action on CO2 emissions?

This was back in 2007.

Google EPA vs Mass.

Yes, we're well aware that the liberal president known as Bush did many wrong things, allowing the EPA to regulate human breath emissions is only one of them.
 
What a surprise that those state suing have Republican governors. :doh Not a surprise that they're more worried about profits than the environment.

This is funny:


It's interesting to see Gov. Perry worried about "providing energy to the rest of the world". :mrgreen:

It's emissions from states like Texas that have killed many lakes in the Adirondack Park, in upstate New York. The EPA is the only group that can force these states to take actions so their "second hand smoke" doesn't choke other states, in effect.

ROFL? Texas pollution is destorying lakes in New York... got a link to prove this inane assertion of yours?

It's GREAT to see these states standing up and saying "Hey, enough of the BS." This has very little to do with the enviroment and everything to do with providin gthe Government (and those whom those in power deem deserving of) with money and power.

Texas get's hit every May from Mexican fires that really hurt our air quality. Sure, Houston sux, but that's more local geography then anything. the area just stagnates... kinda like LA (for different reasons but still)...
 
What a surprise that those state suing have Republican governors. :doh Not a surprise that they're more worried about profits than the environment.

This is funny:


It's interesting to see Gov. Perry worried about "providing energy to the rest of the world". :mrgreen:

It's emissions from states like Texas that have killed many lakes in the Adirondack Park, in upstate New York. The EPA is the only group that can force these states to take actions so their "second hand smoke" doesn't choke other states, in effect.
We have Bush's Clear Skies Initiative.
 
ROFL? Texas pollution is destorying lakes in New York... got a link to prove this inane assertion of yours?.

ADK was ta;lking about acid rain from lower NY State affecting up state and New England.
 
What a surprise that those state suing have Republican governors. :doh Not a surprise that they're more worried about profits than the environment.

No surprise at all that no Democrats want to oppose an out-of-control government agency acting outside of it's mandate and deliberately interfering with the economies of the states and nation for no other reason than to expand their authority.

It's not like global warming is anything real.

It's not like the citizens of the states run by Democrats need jobs or anything like that, oh no.

It must be the evil republicans merely wanting to score points with Big Oil by filing a lawsuit.:roll:
 
ADK was ta;lking about acid rain from lower NY State affecting up state and New England.

Wind patterns in New York State are predominantly from west to east. The geography of the state pretty much prevents pollution from that damned city from affecting the rest of the state.

New York City ****s on Connecticut.
 
The real agenda:


NAIROBI, Kenya — The head of the International Monetary Fund on Monday proposed a plan for the world's governments to pool together to raise money needed to adapt to climate change, a rare step for an organization that normally does not develop environmental policies.

IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn said the Fund is concerned about the huge amount of funding needed and the effect that will have on the global economy. He added that the proposal may help efforts to reach a binding agreement on climate change later this year.

Strauss-Kahn proposed that countries adopt a quota system similar to the one the Fund uses to raise its own money, which could bring in money faster than proposals to increase carbon taxes or other fundraising methods. He only provided a broad outline of the plan, as the organization will release a paper later this week with full details. It is unclear how the proposal will be received.

The IMF raises funds from its 185 members mainly through a quota system that is based broadly on each country's economic size. The United States is currently the largest shareholder.

The Associated Press: IMF suggests how to raise climate change funds


Oh yeah! Global wealth redistribution......Joy!


j-mac
 
ROFL? Texas pollution is destorying lakes in New York... got a link to prove this inane assertion of yours?

Your continual ignorance of weather related issues is astounding considering your job in the navy had something to do with... the... weather! :doh

Since I had to do the work to debunk your defense of Jim Bunning, I'll let you do the research to find this.

You're not in any weather related job now, are you?
:roll:
 
ADK was ta;lking about acid rain from lower NY State affecting up state and New England.

It comes from much farther away than that.

Let's see if Mr Vic can find it.
 
What a surprise that those state suing have Republican governors. :doh Not a surprise that they're more worried about profits than the environment.

This is funny:


It's interesting to see Gov. Perry worried about "providing energy to the rest of the world". :mrgreen:

It's emissions from states like Texas that have killed many lakes in the Adirondack Park, in upstate New York. The EPA is the only group that can force these states to take actions so their "second hand smoke" doesn't choke other states, in effect.

Good lord, LOL.

You won't find cleaner, fresher air than in Texas. We also aren't experiencing a recession, excessive unemployment, tanking home values, high crime, or an unbalanced budget.

Basically, other than for the military, Texas really doesn't need anything from anyone, and it has to tolerate the rest of the country leeching off of it.
 
[QUOTE=jamesrage;
The EPA has responded to the lawsuits with a statement saying the "evidence of and threats posed by a changing climate are right before our eyes." >>

scientist's words are not evidence, no matter what his status is or how many books he wrote.

"EPA is proceeding with common sense measures that are helping to protect Americans from this threat while moving America into a leadership position in the 21st century green economy," the statement read. "Unfortunately, special interest and other defenders of the status quo are now turning to the courts in an attempt to stall progress. ...>>

The EPA should be censored or jailed for using scare tactics to advance their own dooms day agenda. There's no way to get world wide reliable data that proves GM or even establish an average F or C temperature to work with... Far too many variables, inconsistancies, and tolarerances to contend with.

ricksfolly
 
Good lord, LOL.

You won't find cleaner, fresher air than in Texas.

Yeah, unless you try to breathe in Houston. :roll:

Where do you think all that **** spewing out of all those stacks goes since, you've noticed that it's not hanging around over Texas?

We also aren't experiencing a recession, excessive unemployment, tanking home values, high crime, or an unbalanced budget.

Basically, other than for the military, Texas really doesn't need anything from anyone, and it has to tolerate the rest of the country leeching off of it.

Yeah, so you say. Maybe Texas should secede and try to make it on her own, ehh? LOL! Oh, wait a minute, what would they do with all those teen pregnancies, DRUGS, illegal immigrants, etc. Puh-leeze. :doh

The Costs of Texas Teen Pregnancies. . .
Medicaid paid for 173,226 deliveries in Texas, at an estimated total cost of $420 million (HMO deliveries are estimated). Approximately 10% of these deliveries were to teen mothers aged-13-17, at a cost of $41 million.

How Often Does a Teenager in Texas Get Pregnant?

* Every 10 minutes, a teen in Texas gets pregnant.
* Every 10 hours, a 14-year-old teen gets pregnant.
* Every 3 hours, a 15-year-old teen gets pregnant.
* Every 1.5 hours, a 16-year-old teen gets pregnant.
* Every 52 minutes, a 17-year-old-teen gets pregnant.
* Every 35 minutes, an 18-year-old teen gets pregnant.
* Every 28 minutes, a 19-year-old teen gets pregnant.


What are the Outcomes?

* Every 10 minutes a teen gives birth.
* Every 48 minutes a teen has an abortion.
Texas Department of State Health Services - Family Planning Services

States ranked by rates of pregnancy among women age 15-19 (pregnancies per thousand):

1. Nevada (113)
2. Arizona (104)
3. Mississippi (103)
4. New Mexico (103)
5. Texas (101)
6. Florida (97)
7. California (96)
8. Georgia (95)
9. North Carolina (95)
10. Arkansas (93)

States ranked by rates of live births among women age 15-19
(births per thousand):

1. Mississippi (71)
2. Texas (69)
3. Arizona (67)
4. Arkansas (66)
5. New Mexico (66)
6. Georgia (63)
7. Louisiana (62)
8. Nevada (61)
9. Alabama (61)
10. Oklahoma (60)

Texas ranks #12 for Violent Crime Rate National Ranking as well as
ranking 12th in rates of foreclosures. Neither is something to brag about.

So, please spare me the Holy Texas rant.
 
Back
Top Bottom