• 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

Catawba said:
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
Click to expand...

certainly and we shouldn't downplay the interference of the Court here. but let's also not pretend that the EPA's recent moves isn't a response to Congress not passing Cap-and-Tax last year. Should Congress move in and state clearly that the EPA does not have authority to regulate CO2, that would invalidate the Courts' ruling.
 
Kal'Stang said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, by all means, please ask a lawyer, and while there ask him about the difference between legislation and regulations.
 
cpwill said:
nowhere in the Constitution are they given the authority to delegate their rulemaking power.
Click to expand...

So that would make it unconstitutional wouldn't it? After all the Constitution are restrictions on the government. If a power is not given to them via the Constitution that would make it outside thier perview.
 
Catawba said:
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
Click to expand...

Ok, so they were ordered to make an evaluation. Where does that give them the authority to make legislation regarding their findings? And where is thier findings peer reviewed at?
 
Kal'Stang said:
So that would make it unconstitutional wouldn't it? After all the Constitution are restrictions on the government. If a power is not given to them via the Constitution that would make it outside thier perview.
Click to expand...

not necessarily. the CATO institute argues that it does, but the problem becomes one of practicality. for example, Congress orders the military to keep good order and discipline, and adhere to the UCMJ. my CO decides that means that everyone coming to the Mess Night must identify a Designated Driver taking responsibility for them, or else not consume alcohol. now, that's a rule, and you can be punished if you break it. but does Congress have the ability or time to be making rules like "you have to tell us who your DD is if you want to drink"?
 
cpwill said:
certainly and we shouldn't downplay the interference of the Court here. but let's also not pretend that the EPA's recent moves isn't a response to Congress not passing Cap-and-Tax last year.
Click to expand...

You would have to pretend for that to be true since the EPA began the process in 2009.


Should Congress move in and state clearly that the EPA does not have authority to regulate CO2, that would invalidate the Courts' ruling
Click to expand...
.

Can Congress overturn the Supreme Court decision?
 
cpwill said:
not necessarily. the CATO institute argues that it does, but the problem becomes one of practicality. for example, Congress orders the military to keep good order and discipline, and adhere to the UCMJ. my CO decides that means that everyone coming to the Mess Night must identify a Designated Driver taking responsibility for them, or else not consume alcohol. now, that's a rule, and you can be punished if you break it. but does Congress have the ability or time to be making rules like "you have to tell us who your DD is if you want to drink"?
Click to expand...

A very bad analogy. There is a huge difference between making sure that a DD is asigned on an individual basis and regulating entire industries that affect an entire nation.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Ok, so they were ordered to make an evaluation.

Where does that give them the authority to make legislation regarding their findings?
Click to expand...

They did not make legislation.


And where is thier findings peer reviewed at?
Click to expand...

The US Academy of Science as well as the rest of the the world's academies of science.
 
Deuce said:
Wow, I didn't think there were still people unaware of this. Usually this is the part where the conspiracy theories begin.
Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?
Links to endorsements by various science academies.
Click to expand...

Yes I already knew what the majority of climatologists state. That wasn't my question. My question is who exactly peer reviews the EPA findings.
 
Catawba said:
Here are EPA's peer review guidelines ~ USEPA Peer Review Handbook
Click to expand...

Umm...yeah...this is real encouraging to read....

This Handbook was developed by EPA to provide guidance to EPA staff and managers who are planning and conducting peer reviews. This Handbook is intended to improve the internal management of EPA by providing recommended procedures and approaches for EPA staff and managers. This Handbook is a guidance manual and not a rule or regulation. The Handbook does not replace existing laws or regulation, does not change or substitute for any legal requirement, and is not legally enforceable. This Handbook does not create or confer legal rights or impose any legally binding requirements on EPA or any party. The use of non-mandatory language such as "may," "can" or "should" in this Handbook does not connote a requirement but does indicate EPA’s strongly preferred approach to ensure the quality of peer reviews conducted or initiated by EPA. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
Click to expand...
 
–
ISI/HISA consists only of science previously peer reviewed and the review is deemed adequate under the Agency’s Policy (§2.3.2)
– meets criteria for exemption (§2.3.1)
– receives waiver (§2.3.3)
– otherwise determined not to be warranted
Click to expand...

"recieves waiver"? Why would should any scientific paper recieve a waiver? I can understand not re-peer reviewing something. But using something that recieves some sort of "waiver"? Who gives out the waivers? Whats the criteria for giving out waivers?

Now I probably wouldn't have brought this up but the fact that they make a distinction between not peer reviewing something that has already been peer reviewed and not peer reviewing something that gets some sort of waiver indicates to me that some things are not peer reviewed period. As such I see the possibility of misuse in the worst way.

Hope that made since....

Anyways...I've barely even skimmed the dang thing and I have already seen two things that give me pause. And thats putting it nicely.
 
Kal'Stang said:
"recieves waiver"? Why would should any scientific paper recieve a waiver? I can understand not re-peer reviewing something. But using something that recieves some sort of "waiver"? Who gives out the waivers? Whats the criteria for giving out waivers?

Now I probably wouldn't have brought this up but the fact that they make a distinction between not peer reviewing something that has already been peer reviewed and not peer reviewing something that gets some sort of waiver indicates to me that some things are not peer reviewed period. As such I see the possibility of misuse in the worst way.

Hope that made since....

Anyways...I've barely even skimmed the dang thing and I have already seen two things that give me pause. And thats putting it nicely.
Click to expand...

Why yes, instead of checking out what might "meet criteria for exemption," you should definitely just assume your pre-existing conclusion is accurate.
 
Deuce said:
There's the conspiracy theory!
Click to expand...

No...it is a valid question. Would you accept someones statement that they walked on the moon without the benefit of a space suit without someone on the outside peer reviewing it and confirming it?

Yes I am exaggerating to make a point.
 
Deuce said:
Why yes, instead of checking out what might "meet criteria for exemption," you should definitely just assume your pre-existing conclusion is accurate.
Click to expand...

You know what they say when you "assume" something right?
 
Peer review is intended to uncover any technical problems or unresolved issues in a preliminary (or draft) work product through the use of independent experts. This information is then used to revise that draft product so that the final work product will reflect sound technical information and analyses. Peer review is a process for enhancing a scientific or technical work product so that the decision or position taken by the Agency, based on that product, has a sound, credible basis. To be most effective, peer review of a scientific and/or technical work product should be incorporated into the up-front planning of any action based on the work product - this includes obtaining the proper resource commitments (people and money) and establishing realistic schedules.
Click to expand...

Umm...last I knew a "peer review" was not about enhancing anything. Last I knew a "peer review" was used to make sure of the accuracy of findings and those that do the peer reviewing point out the mistakes. Also a peer review is usually conducted with the finished product..not the rough draft of a product.
 
Catawba said:
Here are EPA's peer review guidelines ~ USEPA Peer Review Handbook
Click to expand...

I've found 3 things wrong with this "handbook" and I haven't even gotten through a quarter of it yet.

Edit note: PS: 3 strikes you're out. I'm not even going to bother with the rest of that handbook. The EPA NEEDS to stop regulating and leave it up to the people that were elected to do the regulating.
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
I've found 3 things wrong with this "handbook" and I haven't even gotten through a quarter of it yet.

Edit note: PS: 3 strikes you're out. I'm not even going to bother with the rest of that handbook. The EPA NEEDS to stop regulating and leave it up to the people that were elected to do the regulating.
Click to expand...

Or, you've found 3 things you do not understand and assume the worst, just as you have in your misunderstanding of the distinction between legislation and regulations.

Legislation ~ "law enacted by a legislative body, the act of making or enacting laws."

Regulations ~ "Regulation is "controlling human or societal behaviour by rules or restrictions." Regulation can take many forms: legal restrictions promulgated by a government authority, self-regulation by an industry such as through a trade association, social regulation (e.g. norms), co-regulation and market ...
 
Catawba said:
Or, you've found 3 things you do not understand and assume the worst, just as you have in your misunderstanding of the distinction between legislation and regulations.

Legislation ~ "law enacted by a legislative body, the act of making or enacting laws."

Regulations ~ "Regulation is "controlling human or societal behaviour by rules or restrictions." Regulation can take many forms: legal restrictions promulgated by a government authority, self-regulation by an industry such as through a trade association, social regulation (e.g. norms), co-regulation and market ...
Click to expand...

And you don't see how the two are essentially the same thing in this case? Why am I not surprised.

BTW, how about showing how I am wrong on the three things I listed?
 
apdst said:
The Republicans certainly hit the ground running. Rock on!!
Click to expand...

I support this bill. But at the same time I suspect that this is merely political grandstanding and nothing more. The republicans do not have a veto-proof majority. Liberals believe in the man made global warming fairy tale religion, so they want to let the EPA regulate green house emissions. What matters is what the republicans will do once they have the majority and a republican president who is actually a conservative or somewhat conservative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom