• 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!

Nearly 50 House Republicans offer bill to block EPA climate rules

apdst

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,937
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
apdst said:
The Republicans certainly hit the ground running. Rock on!!
Click to expand...

I approve of this.

Wait for it, we'll get a few of the usual suspects coming here with talk about:

"I guess you don't like clean air or clean water"
"What do you expect, the Republicans only care about corporate profits not our children's future!"
 
I don't know that I'm a usual EPA "suspect", but I read about this in yesterday's Dallas Morning News. It seems that Texas congressmen have been leading the charge on this legislation. The decision for cleaning up the air was handed down by SCOTUS many years ago. Of course Texas polluters ignored the ruling and haven't even attempted to ease the emissions from their factories.

The column was accompanied by a photo of the Dallas skyline where it is almost impossible to make out the tall buildings in the filthy air. We call this an orange ozone alert day. Stay inside. Don't breathe the air. We usually run orange ozone days all throughout the summer months. It looks as bad as LA in the sixties.

Of course the businesses that pollute say that it would cost them too much money to convert to cleaner emissions. That is probably true. I don't have a solution to the problem, but I can see this legislation struggling against a Supreme Court decision. Just barely, if I squint my burning eyes.
 
Last edited:
Mickey Shane said:
I don't know that I'm a usual EPA "suspect", but I read about this in yesterday's Dallas Morning News. It seems that Texas congressmen have been leading the charge on this legislation. The decision for cleaning up the air was handed down by SCOTUS many years ago. Of course Texas polluters ignored the ruling and haven't even attempted to ease the emissions from their factories.

The column was accompanied by a photo of the Dallas skyline where it is almost impossible to make out the tall buildings in the filthy air. We call this an orange ozone alert day. Stay inside. Don't breathe the air. We usually run orange ozone days all throughout the summer months. It looks as bad as LA in the sixties.

Of course the businesses that pollute say that it would cost them too much money to convert to cleaner emissions. That is probably true. I don't have a solution to the problem, but I can see this legislation struggling against a Supreme Court decision. Just barely, if I squint my burning eyes.
Click to expand...

San Antonio get's those days. When the wind is out of the South-SouthWest.

The EPA get's to pass this stuff, and you're gonna see prices soar for everything. They've even been making noise about forcing the state to do mandatory emissions tests on cars. Guess what that's gonna do to the price of your vehicle.
 
MrVicchio said:
San Antonio get's those days. When the wind is out of the South-SouthWest.

The EPA get's to pass this stuff, and you're gonna see prices soar for everything. They've even been making noise about forcing the state to do mandatory emissions tests on cars. Guess what that's gonna do to the price of your vehicle.
Click to expand...


Probably nothing since we already have an emissions test here in texas
 
Mickey Shane said:
I don't know that I'm a usual EPA "suspect", but I read about this in yesterday's Dallas Morning News. It seems that Texas congressmen have been leading the charge on this legislation. The decision for cleaning up the air was handed down by SCOTUS many years ago. Of course Texas polluters ignored the ruling and haven't even attempted to ease the emissions from their factories.

The column was accompanied by a photo of the Dallas skyline where it is almost impossible to make out the tall buildings in the filthy air. We call this an orange ozone alert day. Stay inside. Don't breathe the air. We usually run orange ozone days all throughout the summer months. It looks as bad as LA in the sixties.

Of course the businesses that pollute say that it would cost them too much money to convert to cleaner emissions. That is probably true. I don't have a solution to the problem, but I can see this legislation struggling against a Supreme Court decision. Just barely, if I squint my burning eyes.
Click to expand...

what does carbon dioxide have to do with smog... nothing.
 
winston53660 said:
Probably nothing since we already have an emissions test here in texas
Click to expand...

yep, won't affect the price of the car. what it will affect is the price of operating the car. get ready to pay a couple hundred bucks a year to have your car "inspected" by a state approved mechanic to insure that it meet the emmission standards. and then pay another $50-60 bucks fee to the state for a sticker to put on your windshield proving that you have been inspected and passed inspection. It's another in a long line of scams. They've been doing this BS in CA for decades.

When I got off active duty, we moved to CA so my wife could be closer to her family. One of the first things I had to do was pay $300 to get my car inspected to insure it met the CA emission standards, then a trip down to the DMV where I got to pay an additional $50 for the sticker. and this was 20 years ago, I can only imagine what they charge today.
 
it will indeed increase the price of a car; by increasing the price of its materials and manufacture.

my uncle is a small business owner, a real up-by-his-bootstraps American Story. but he's in contracting; an industry that would be heavy hit by carbon regulation. i asked him this christmas; if the EPA's ruling stands, he and his partner more than likely will have to shut the business. 65 jobs instantly lost.
 
apdst said:
The Republicans certainly hit the ground running. Rock on!!
Click to expand...

Why is an attempt to cut pollution control a good thing?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Because making laws/rules should be left up to our elected officials. Not the EPA.
Click to expand...

Yeah, a bunch of politicians should decide things instead of people who actually know something about the subject!
 
Kal'Stang said:
Because making laws/rules should be left up to our elected officials. Not the EPA.
Click to expand...

Congress has charged the EPA with making environmental regulations.
 
Deuce said:
Yeah, a bunch of politicians should decide things instead of people who actually know something about the subject!
Click to expand...

Happens all the time. What do you think that we should just abolish Congress and the Senate and leave it up to supposed experts that base everything off of personal agenda's and twisted statistics with no way of getting rid of them?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Yeah, with no real oversight. Does that sound like a good thing to you?
Click to expand...

It was Bush's EPA with a Republican Congress at the time when the EPA made the determination that climate was indeed human induced. Where did Bush and the Republican Congress fail in their oversight?
 
Catawba said:
It was Bush's EPA with a Republican Congress at the time when the EPA made the determination that climate was indeed human induced. Where did Bush and the Republican Congress fail in their oversight?
Click to expand...

Who cares who's "epa" it was? What has Bush and a republican congress got to do with this besides partisan rhetoric?

The failure of oversight is that the EPA can write legislation. No government office should be allowed to write legislation beyond that of Congress and the Senate. Unless of couse the heads at the EPA are elected by the US population. Then I wouldn't care.
 
Deuce said:
Yeah, a bunch of politicians should decide things instead of people who actually know something about the subject!
Click to expand...

yes. here in this country we call that "representative government" as opposed to "autocracy".
 
Catawba said:
Congress has charged the EPA with making environmental regulations.
Click to expand...

not really. it charged them with a narrow band of authority; which the EPA has since sought to expand to include CO2. however, the EPA has no business expanding it's own sphere of authority; if Congress chooses to do so, that is Congress's perogative.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Who cares who's "epa" it was? What has Bush and a republican congress got to do with this besides partisan rhetoric?

The failure of oversight is that the EPA can write legislation. No government office should be allowed to write legislation beyond that of Congress and the Senate. Unless of couse the heads at the EPA are elected by the US population. Then I wouldn't care.
Click to expand...

The EPA doesn't write legislation they write pollution control regulations as they have been charged to do by Congress.
 
to control items such as smog. they were never granted the authority to control greenhouse gasses. if congress decides that greenhouse gasses are a threat on par wit smog in the 70's and decides to task the EPA with its' regulation , then that's fine. I'll disagree with their finding, but everything at least is Constitutional. For the EPA to decide that it can expand it's own authority and set itself up as a check on Congressional action (or inaction), however, is unconstitutional and sets a dangerous precedent indeed.
 
MrVicchio said:
I approve of this.

Wait for it, we'll get a few of the usual suspects coming here with talk about:

"I guess you don't like clean air or clean water"
"What do you expect, the Republicans only care about corporate profits not our children's future!"
Click to expand...

Not being to go outside for a breath of fresh air is a bit beyond the pale for me. I wasn't aware corporations owned a community's oxygen.
 
Catawba said:
The EPA doesn't write legislation they write pollution control regulations as they have been charged to do by Congress.
Click to expand...

Regulations and legislation in this instance is the same thing. They both are about writing laws/rules that people must follow or end up with fines, and even possible jail time.

Actually when thinking about it does Congress even have the authority to give the EPA the ability to write regulations without Congress's consent? I may just ask a lawyer that I know about this.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
not really. it charged them with a narrow band of authority; which the EPA has since sought to expand to include CO2. however, the EPA has no business expanding it's own sphere of authority; if Congress chooses to do so, that is Congress's perogative.
Click to expand...

The EPA did not "seek" to expand to include C02, they were ordered to do so by the Supreme Court during the Bush Administration.

"The environmental agency is under order from the Supreme Court to make a determination whether carbon dioxide is a pollutant that endangers public health and welfare, an order that the Bush administration essentially ignored despite near-unanimous belief among agency experts that research points inexorably to such a finding."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/19/science/earth/19epa.html
 
Kal'Stang said:
Actually when thinking about it does Congress even have the authority to give the EPA the ability to write regulations without Congress's consent? I may just ask a lawyer that I know about this.
Click to expand...

nowhere in the Constitution are they given the authority to delegate their rulemaking power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom