"Dennis"
never.net> wrote in message
news:HZSdneoT1qhOORnVnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d@comcast.com...> EDITORIAL FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
>
> HEAD: The Lawnmower Men
>
>
> Al Gore blew into Washington on Thursday, warning that "our very way of
> life" is imperiled if the U.S. doesn't end "the carbon age" within 10
years.
> No one seriously believes such a goal is even remotely plausible. But if
you
> want to know what he and his acolytes think this means in practice, the
> Environmental Protection Agency has just published the instruction manual.
> Get ready for the lawnmower inspector near you.
>
> In a huge document released last Friday, the EPA lays out the thousands of
> carbon controls with which they'd like to shackle the whole economy.
Central
> planning is too artful a term for the EPA's nanomanagement. Thankfully
none
> of it has the force of law -- yet. However, the Bush Administration has
done
> a public service by opening this window on new-wave green thinking like
Mr.
> Gore's, and previewing what Democrats have in mind for next year.
>
> The mess began in 2007, when the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Mass. v. EPA
> that greenhouse gases are "air pollutants" under current environmental
laws,
> despite the fact that the laws were written decades before the
> climate-change panic. The EPA was ordered to regulate if it decides that
> carbon emissions are a danger to the public. The 588-page "advance notice
of
> proposed rulemaking" lays out how the EPA would like it to work in
practice.
>
> Justice Antonin Scalia noted in his dissent that under the Court's
> "pollutant" standard "everything airborne, from Frisbees to flatulence,
> qualifies," which the EPA appears to have taken literally. It is alarmed
by
> "enteric fermentation in domestic livestock" -- that is, er, their
> "emissions." A farm with over 25 cows would exceed the EPA's proposed
carbon
> limits. So would 500 acres of crops, due to harvesting and processing
> machinery.
>
> But never fear. The EPA would regulate "farm tractors" too, plus "lawn and
> garden equipment." For example, it "could require a different unit of
> measure [for carbon emissions] tied to the machine's mission or output --
> such as grams per kilogram of cuttings from a 'standard' lawn for
> lawnmowers."
>
> In fact, the EPA has new mandates for everything with an engine. There's a
> slew of auto regulations, especially jacking up fuel-efficiency standards
> well beyond their current levels, and even controlling the weight and
> performance of cars and trucks. Carbon rules are offered for "dirt bikes
and
> snowmobiles." Next up: Nascar.
>
> The EPA didn't neglect planes and trains either, down to rules for how
> aircraft can taxi on the runway. Guidelines are proposed for boat design
> such as hulls and propellers. "Innovative strategies for reducing hull
> friction include coatings with textures similar to marine animals," the
> authors chirp. They also suggest "crew education campaigns" on energy use
at
> sea. Fishermen will love their eco-sensitivity training.
>
> New or modified buildings that went over the emissions limits would have
to
> obtain EPA permits. This would cover power plants, manufacturers, etc. But
> it would also include "large office and residential buildings, hotels,
large
> retail establishments and similar facilities" -- like schools and
hospitals.
> The limits are so low that they would apply to "hundreds of thousands" of
> sources, as the EPA itself notes. "We expect that the entire country would
> be in nonattainment."
>
> If this power grab wasn't enough, "EPA also believes that . . . it might
be
> possible for the Agency to consider deeper reductions through a
> cap-and-trade program." The EPA thinks it can levy a carbon tax too, as
long
> as it's called a "fee." In other words, the EPA wants to impose via
> regulatory ukase what Congress hasn't been able to enact via democratic
> debate.
>
> That's why the global warmists have so much invested in the EPA's final
> ruling, which will come in the next Administration. Any climate tax
involves
> arguments about costs and benefits; voting to raise energy prices is not
> conducive to re-election. But if liberals can outsource their policies to
> the EPA, they can take credit while avoiding any accountability for the
huge
> economic costs they impose.
>
> Meanwhile, the EPA's career staff is unsupervised. In December, they went
> ahead and made their so-called "endangerment finding" on carbon,
deputizing
> themselves as the rulers of the global-warming bureaucracy. The adults in
> the White House were aghast when they saw the draft. EPA lifers retaliated
> by leaking the disputes of the standard interagency review process to
> Democrats like Henry Waxman and sympathetic reporters. Thus the
> stations-of-the-cross media narrative about "political interference," as
if
> the EPA's careerists don't have their own agenda. So the Administration
> performed triage by making everything transparent.
>
> At least getting the EPA on the record will help clarify the costs of
carbon
> restrictions. Democrats complaining about "censorship" at the EPA are
> welcome to defend fiats about lawnmowers and flatulent cows.
> **********
> "Flatulent cow," what a great two word description of Al "I am too the
alpha
> male, aren't I Tipper, huh, aren't I" Gore. However, you orange
> frightwig-wearing red noses should be careful what you wish for from your
> ever growing nanny gov't.
>
> Dionysus
>
Did any body learned anything from the article above? It's the same crap
Dennis finds in WSJ all the time. I wonder if these people that don't
believe the planet
is warming are ready to die for the profit their making, and what are they
going
to do with the money, take it to the next world with them?
"Flatulent cows" should describe the rightard ignorants, people without a
sense
of direction, or what is good for them.
Now, crawl back in your hole.
