>
> "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.

> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>