[talaniman]

Why is it odd to think the Earth would compensate for cleaning up our filth and restore balance for the life it supports? Adapt or die.

[speechlesstx]

Lots more science to be learned and applied better.

Not if they shut down the debate.

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

CO2 is not trash, plants need it.

Water isn't trash either, fish need it. But, if YOU breath it, it'll KILL you.

Besides, we should be worried about what's good for US, not the trees. Since when did you become a treehugger?

excon

[talaniman]

Nothing shuts down debate between opposite believers. Not even calling each others names. It still rages on.

[speechlesstx]

In other words, you're ok with all the lies, hypocrisy, thuggery, cronyism etc. by the climate change crowd? And I like trees because they give me shade, take in CO2, produce oxygen and they're a damn sight prettier than pavement.

[paraclete]

we are looking at this CO2 thing all wrong, we want to go and live on Mars, Mars has a thin CO2 atmosphere; what could be more logical than we learn to live in a CO2 atmosphere right here on Earth before we go?

[speechlesstx]

Nothing shuts down debate between opposite believers. Not even calling each others names. It still rages on.

As I've noted many times now, only one side is trying to silence the other and saying the debate is over, much more insidious than name calling.

[speechlesstx]

we are looking at this CO2 thing all wrong, we want to go and live on Mars, Mars has a thin CO2 atmosphere; what could be more logical than we learn to live in a CO2 atmosphere right here on Earth before we go?

Who's this we? It's much too cold and barren for me, the trip is too long and there's a fatwa against going to Mars. But a great point for the true believers, they should get used to it.

[excon]

Hello smoothy:

I guess all this snow and bitter cold weather is because its gotten so warm out?

Church is NOT a good place to learn your science.

excon

[talaniman]

It might be a good place to hide from the extreme weather though.

[paraclete]

Who's this we? It's much too cold and barren for me, the trip is too long and there's [COLOR=#417394]a fatwa against going to Mars[/COLOR]. But a great point for the true believers, they should get used to it.

We could look at it as the royal we, there being more than one of us, or the human race, or interested parties. You stay home by all means, someone has to use up the CO2 and since when were you concerned about what misguided muslims think? As to the cold and barren landscape what an opportunity to use our irrigation skills to transform the place.

You see the practicalities don't seem to matter to those who are bored with same old Earth

[smoothy]

More common sense from the Supreme court smacking down the epa ENVIRONAZIS.


Supreme Court limits EPA global warming rules

Published June 23, 2014 FoxNews.com




The Supreme Court delivered a setback to the Environmental Protection Agency on Monday, placing limits on the sole Obama administration program already in place to deal with power plant and factory emissions of gases blamed for global warming.
The decision does not affect recent and highly controversial EPA proposals to set the first-ever national standards for new and existing power plants. One recent proposal would aim for a 30 percent emissions reduction by 2030.

ADVERTISEMENT


ADVERTISEMENT


Rather, at issue was a requirement that companies expanding industrial facilities or building new ones that would increase overall pollution must evaluate ways to reduce carbon emissions. The justices said Monday that the EPA lacks authority in some cases to force companies to do so.
However, the ruling could nevertheless be used to challenge other aspects of the EPA's effort to deal with global warming.
The rule in question applies when a company needs a permit to expand facilities or build new ones that would increase overall pollution.
Under Monday's ruling, EPA can continue to require permits for greenhouse gas emissions for those facilities that already have to obtain permits because they emit other pollutants that EPA has long regulated. But Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the court's conservatives in the part of the ruling in which the justices split 5-4, said EPA could not require a permit solely on the basis of greenhouse gas emissions.
The program at issue is the first piece of EPA's attempt to reduce carbon output from large sources of pollution.
The utility industry, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and 13 states led by Texas asked the court to rule that the EPA overstepped its authority by trying to regulate greenhouse gas emissions through the permitting program. The administration failed to get climate change legislation through Congress.
The outcome does preserve EPA's authority over facilities that already emit pollutants that the agency regulates other than greenhouse gases.
Scalia, writing for the court, said "EPA is getting almost everything it wanted in this case." Scalia said the agency wanted to regulate 86 percent of all greenhouse gases emitted from plants nationwide. The agency will be able to regulate 83 percent of the emissions under the ruling, Scalia said.
EPA said that, as of late March, 166 permits have been issued by state and federal regulators since 2011.
Permits have been issued to power plants, but also to plants that produce chemicals, cement, iron and steel, fertilizer, ceramics and ethanol. Oil refineries and municipal landfills also have obtained greenhouse gas permits since 2011, EPA said.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.



Supreme Court limits EPA global warming rules | Fox News

[talaniman]

EPA could not require a permit solely on the basis of greenhouse gas emissions.

They can and will have increased requirements for disposal and of waste and by products also.

http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/index.htm

Scalia, writing for the court, said "EPA is getting almost everything it wanted in this case." Scalia said the agency wanted to regulate 86 percent of all greenhouse gases emitted from plants nationwide. The agency will be able to regulate 83 percent of the emissions under the ruling, Scalia said.

Some set back huh!

[tomder55]

some victory .... another affirmation from SCOTUS of the EPA's 'mandate' to regulate C02 as a pollutant.
This comes on the wake of more evidence that the whole global warming fraud was built on a foundation of outright lies and intentionally distorted data .
Steven Goddard has demonstrated that NOAA and NASA have distorted graphs to make the claim of warming when in fact ,the warmest recent period was in the 1930s . We have been getting steadily cooler since .
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...ns-are-global/
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...r-in-the-us-2/

[smoothy]

Step in the right direction by the SCOTUS... and don't doubt there will be many more to follow, as there should be. Its an out of control agency with no accountability that really should be shut down. THey have been out of control for far too long.

[talaniman]

Who needs clean air and clean water?

[paraclete]

a somewhat rhetorical question Tal it seems the Chinese have been on a path to prove we don't aided and abetted by those in other countries who want to shut down polluting industries

[smoothy]

Who needs clean air and clean water?

Except that's not what they are doing... for far too long they have been forcing without any check or ballances.. a radical extremist partisan political agenda on the American people devoid of any Control what-so-ever by elected lawmakers.

[tomder55]

Who needs clean air and

clean water?

irrelevant bumper sticker slogan that doesn't address the fact that the house of cards that the enviro-wackos built their case on has a foundation fraud and lies.

[talaniman]

Well that's a nice way to have a debate spewing right wing anti government clap trap without specifics or sources to make your point.