• 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

Morality Games said:
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.
Click to expand...

Those CEO's have to breath the same air as you, why would they want it dirty?
 
American said:
Those CEO's have to breath the same air as you, why would they want it dirty?
Click to expand...

Are you trying to say that industry has voluntarily always put what's best for public health above bottom line profit? In this case in particular, the climate changes won't become readily apparent to everyone until after the current CEOs are dead, so they're off the hook. It will be our grandkids and great-grandkids that may suffer from our short-term gain funnel vision over conservation for the future.
 
Catawba said:
Are you trying to say that industry has voluntarily always put what's best for public health above bottom line profit? In this case in particular, the climate changes won't become readily apparent to everyone until after the current CEOs are dead, so they're off the hook. It will be our grandkids and great-grandkids that may suffer from our short-term gain funnel vision over conservation for the future.
Click to expand...

I think what I said was pretty clear, the pollution is today and the CEO's are breathing it today. How are they getting out of anything?
 
American said:
I think what I said was pretty clear, the pollution is today and the CEO's are breathing it today. How are they getting out of anything?
Click to expand...

Say what? I'm sorry, let me back up. The thread is about EPA climate rules. CO2 has been found to be a pollutant because too much has an adverse effect on our climate, not because it makes it hard to breathe.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Say what? I'm sorry, let me back up. The thread is about EPA climate rules. CO2 has been found to be a pollutant because too much has an adverse effect on our climate, not because it makes it hard to breathe.
Click to expand...

crap arguement. too much of anything has an adverse effect on our climate.
 
OscarB63 said:
too much of anything has an adverse effect on our climate.
Click to expand...

You are correct sir. In this case, we have increased the CO2 levels 30-40% above levels produced by nature and the earths ability to naturally sequester it.
 
Catawba said:
You are correct sir. In this case, we have increased the CO2 levels 30-40% above levels produced by nature and the earths ability to naturally sequester it.
Click to expand...

link please
 
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...

If the EPA were allowed to expand it's own powers, that would set a precident for other agencies to do the same thing.

Not good.
 
Catawba said:
You would have to pretend for that to be true since the EPA began the process in 2009.
Click to expand...

in preparation and also as a threat to force Congress into action. no pretense is necessary, the Obama administration decided early on that it would regulate this issue if it couldn't legislate on it.

Can Congress overturn the Supreme Court decision?
Click to expand...

the Court decision was in reference to the intent of Congress in passing the legislation authorizing the EPA. if Congress clarifies' its' intent, then that would overide the Courts' ruling.
 
OscarB63 said:
link please
Click to expand...

"Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2."
How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?
 
cpwill said:
in preparation and also as a threat to force Congress into action. no pretense is necessary, the Obama administration decided early on that it would regulate this issue if it couldn't legislate on it.
Click to expand...

Again, it wasn't something Obama or the EPA did on their own:

"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/sc...rth/19epa.html

the Court decision was in reference to the intent of Congress in passing the legislation authorizing the EPA. if Congress clarifies' its' intent, then that would overide the Courts' ruling.
Click to expand...

What would the rationale be behind a change of intent in Congress? The scientific consensus for the cause of climate change has not changed.
 
Catawba said:
Again, it wasn't something Obama or the EPA did on their own:

"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/sc...rth/19epa.html



What would the rationale be behind a change of intent in Congress? The scientific consensus for the cause of climate change has not changed.
Click to expand...

So, you're OK with the Supreme Court 'making' law, instead of determining Constitutionality of law?
 
Whovian said:
So, you're OK with the Supreme Court 'making' law, instead of determining Constitutionality of law?
Click to expand...

Congress provided the intent of the new regulations, Bush ignored it, so the Supreme Court stepped in. That is how the 3 branches of the government are supposed to work.
 
Catawba said:
Congress provided the intent of the new regulations, Bush ignored it, so the Supreme Court stepped in. That is how the 3 branches of the government are supposed to work.
Click to expand...

you do not appear to comprehend the actual role of the Supreme Court.

Here's a kids version... many small words...

Role of the Supreme Court | Scholastic.com

The Supreme Court has a special role to play in the United States system of government. The Constitution gives it the power to check, if necessary, the actions of the President and Congress.

It can tell a President that his actions are not allowed by the Constitution. It can tell Congress that a law it passed violated the U.S. Constitution and is, therefore, no longer a law. It can also tell the government of a state that one of its laws breaks a rule in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court is like a referee on a football field. The Congress, the President, the state police, and other government officials are the players. Some can pass laws, and others can enforce laws. But all exercise power within certain boundaries. These boundaries are set by the Constitution. As the "referee" in the U.S. system of government, it is the Supreme Court's job to say when government officials step out-of-bounds.
Click to expand...


If you can manage it, here's the big boy version...
http://usgovinfo.about.com/blctjurisdiction.htm
The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court’ s considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution.
Click to expand...
The Constitution limits the Court to dealing with “Cases” and “Controversies.” John Jay, the first Chief Justice, clarified this restraint early in the Court’ s history by declining to advise President George Washington on the constitutional implications of a proposed foreign policy decision. The Court does not give advisory opinions; rather, its function is limited only to deciding specific cases.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Yep, that's what they did, they checked the power of President Bush, just as the Constitution gave them the authority to do. Thanks for providing the quotes!
Click to expand...

You're really not good at this, are you...
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
Click to expand...

is NOT checking the power of the President... it's an attempt to legislate from the bench. Not within their power.
 
Catawba said:
Congress provided the intent of the new regulations, Bush ignored it, so the Supreme Court stepped in. That is how the 3 branches of the government are supposed to work.
Click to expand...

incorrect; congress never intended for greenhouse gasses to be regulated by the EPA. given the explicit choice to expand the EPA's authority, they again declined to do so. :shrug: the Court was wrong.
 
Catawba said:
Congress provided the intent of the new regulations, Bush ignored it, so the Supreme Court stepped in. That is how the 3 branches of the government are supposed to work.
Click to expand...
cpwill said:
incorrect; congress never intended for greenhouse gasses to be regulated by the EPA. given the explicit choice to expand the EPA's authority, they again declined to do so. :shrug: the Court was wrong.
Click to expand...

I'd really LOVE for Cat to show me the specific text of a law that proves Congress 'intent' to regulate greenhouse gases. HE won't though.
 
Whovian said:
You're really not good at this, are you...


is NOT checking the power of the President... it's an attempt to legislate from the bench. Not within their power.
Click to expand...

Not according to the Constitution. Show us evidence of where it was proven to be unconstitutional.
 
Whovian said:
I'd really LOVE for Cat to show me the specific text of a law that proves Congress 'intent' to regulate greenhouse gases. HE won't though.
Click to expand...


I accept the Supreme Court's decision, if you do not, prove your case.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
incorrect; congress never intended for greenhouse gasses to be regulated by the EPA. given the explicit choice to expand the EPA's authority, they again declined to do so. :shrug: the Court was wrong.
Click to expand...

I have seen no evidence of the Court being wrong.
 
cpwill said:
incorrect; congress never intended for greenhouse gasses to be regulated by the EPA. given the explicit choice to expand the EPA's authority, they again declined to do so. :shrug: the Court was wrong.
Click to expand...

Here is EPA's authority from Congress to develop regulations to reduce pollution.
Clean Air Act
 
Last edited:
Whats the matter Catawba? No answers to this?

Kal'Stang said:
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?
Click to expand...
 
Kal'Stang said:
Whats the matter Catawba? No answers to this?
Click to expand...

Legislation and regulation are not the same thing, in this case or any other. Similar in nature, yes, but they are two different things.

As far as the three things you've listed, you haven't proven yourself right, it's not up to us to prove you wrong. You made some assumptions about the peer-review process that you've yet to support. You don't know why something might be granted a waiver, you just assumed they do it on spurious grounds. Potential incentive to possibly maybe be biased on peer-review does not mean biased peer review occurred. After all, you have a direct financial incentive to cheat on your taxes, but that could hardly be considered evidence that you've actually done it, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom