PDA

View Full Version : EPA Set to Declare Carbon Dioxide a Public Danger



megimoo
12-06-2009, 04:25 AM
"Step one: Declare it Dangerous and illegal.Step two:Tax the 'Sh*t' out of it !"

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will early next week, possibly as soon as Monday, officially declare carbon dioxide a public danger, a trigger that could mean regulation for emitters across the economy, according to several people close to the matter.

Such an "endangerment" decision is necessary for the EPA to move ahead early next year with new emission standards for cars. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has said it could also mean large emitters such as power stations, cement kilns, crude-oil refineries and chemical plants would have to curb their greenhouse gas output.

The announcement would also give President Barack Obama and his climate envoy negotiating leverage at a global climate summit starting next week in Copenhagen, Denmark and increase pressure on Congress to pass a climate bill that would modify the price of polluting.

While environmentalists celebrate EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases, it has caused many large emitters to cringe at the potential costs of compliance.

According to a preliminary endangerment finding published in April, EPA scientists fear that man-made carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are contributing to a warming of the global climate. Senior EPA officials said in November the agency would likely make a final decision in December around the time of the summit.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/06/epa-set-delare-carbon-dioxide-public-danger/

Swampfox
12-06-2009, 06:49 AM
CO2 starts to affect humans if it is more than 5000 PPM. However, you probably won't start feeling the effects of CO2 until about 10,000 PPM or approximately 1% of air. Right now, CO2 is only at around 383 PPM. CO2 is relatively low right now. It has been increasing by about 1 PPM every year since the 1950s. It would take over 4,000 years at this rate for CO2 to start being dangerous to humans.

You could cut it a little bit, though there's really not much of a point to doing that. If you cut it too low, you'll start to harm plant life, which will mean less oxygen in the atmosphere.

megimoo
12-06-2009, 09:15 AM
CO2 starts to affect humans if it is more than 5000 PPM. However, you probably won't start feeling the effects of CO2 until about 10,000 PPM or approximately 1% of air. Right now, CO2 is only at around 383 PPM. CO2 is relatively low right now. It has been increasing by about 1 PPM every year since the 1950s. It would take over 4,000 years at this rate for CO2 to start being dangerous to humans.

You could cut it a little bit, though there's really not much of a point to doing that. If you cut it too low, you'll start to harm plant life, which will mean less oxygen in the atmosphere.CO2 is plant and tree food and is self regulating .It's just another bogus cause for the Greenies and Liberals to jump on and tax.

No More soda pop for you kiddo !

Carol Browner, EPA director is famous for going off 'Half Cocked','Second Hand Smoke' anyone ?

AmPat
12-06-2009, 11:41 AM
I can only draw one conclusion from this: We need to start cutting down all the trees in the U.S.A.

Imagine the danger the native American Indians were in when the landscape was covered in those dangerous trees.:rolleyes:

Hazey
12-07-2009, 02:17 AM
Drink your beer fast! We all have to do our part to contain that evil CO2.
I hope that we all have a good laugh about this in a few years. Sadly, I know educated people that buy this snake oil.

lacarnut
12-07-2009, 11:41 AM
Giving all these wackos a healthy dose of CO would solve the problem.

noonwitch
12-07-2009, 01:18 PM
CO2 starts to affect humans if it is more than 5000 PPM. However, you probably won't start feeling the effects of CO2 until about 10,000 PPM or approximately 1% of air. Right now, CO2 is only at around 383 PPM. CO2 is relatively low right now. It has been increasing by about 1 PPM every year since the 1950s. It would take over 4,000 years at this rate for CO2 to start being dangerous to humans.

You could cut it a little bit, though there's really not much of a point to doing that. If you cut it too low, you'll start to harm plant life, which will mean less oxygen in the atmosphere.



That makes sense. I don't have a problem with auto companies considering the effects of CO2 when designing cars, but I don't see where this needs to be EPA policy/federal law. I always was told it was Carbon Monoxide that was the problem. At least that's what some people's cigarette boxes say. My cigarettes are only bad for pregnant women and the babies they are carrying, according to the warning label (Virginia Slims).

megimoo
12-07-2009, 01:29 PM
Giving all these wackos a healthy dose of CO would solve the problem.Just what they don't need is a massive gas enema .They are already full of wind and sh*t !:D

FreeAmerican
12-07-2009, 01:38 PM
FYI....If you google this you will find articles dating back earlier this year as well.

lacarnut
12-07-2009, 01:48 PM
Just what they don't need is a massive gas enema .They are already full of wind and sh*t !:D

A lethal dose would solve the problem:)

megimoo
12-07-2009, 01:59 PM
A lethal dose would solve the problem:)

Monty Python's The Meaning of Life - The Autumn Years
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlfcF1I5e_g

Exploding Cat
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjWiWZoQs1s&feature=related

NJCardFan
12-07-2009, 05:33 PM
I really hate being smarter than the so called experts. I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer but we exhale CO2, yeah? OK. The experts say that the rate of CO2 has grown since 1950, right? OK. In 1950 the world population was roughly 2.5 billion. Some project that the world population will be around 7 billion in 2010. That's an increase of what, 300% in 60 years? And doesn't more people breathing mean more CO2? However we should have seen this coming, the day that they start taxing the air we breath. Keep electing progressives people.

PoliCon
12-07-2009, 10:52 PM
This reminds me of when that municipality out in california almost outlawed dihyrdogen monoxide . . . .

AmPat
12-08-2009, 11:59 AM
I heard today on a news/talk radio program a comparison of the gasses that make up "greenhouse" gasses. He compared it to marbles of different colors. 100 marbles in a jar. Take out 78 blue ones and and 13 green , etc, etc. He eventually got down to 1 marble that he split with a "magic hammer" into 100 different marbles of different colors. He then got to 1 of these smaller marbles and said that it represented all the green house gasses collectively. Out of those gasses, CO2 was 5% of that. Of the total CO2 emitted by humans, the USA was responsible for 22%, a horrendous total. Of that, the total that the proposed cuts in CO2 emissions that the USA would commit to would not make any significant difference to world temperatures. Of course once we commit to these proposals, our energy would immediately be unaffordable and we would lose thousands of jobs. But have no fear, the DUmmycRATS in charge are fully committed to bankrupt our country to support this junk science hysteria.:mad:

FlaGator
12-08-2009, 06:02 PM
Oddly enough, I was researching this over the weekend. The atmosphere of earth is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen and 1% other gases. Like the marble example showed that 1% is made of a lot of other gases some greenhouse gases and other not. There is also data (I'm trying to find the articles for wilbur) that indicate that most greenhouse gases are not as good at causing heat retention as first expected.

The AGW people hold up Venus as an example of the Greenhouse effect run amok but the Atmosphere of Venus is 96.5% Carbon Dioxide and 3.5 percent nitrogen. There are trace amounts of other gases but they do not effect the make up of the atmosphere. What AGW people would have us believe is that a gas on Earth that is less that a quarter of one percent of the total volume of gases is comparable with an atmosphere that is comprise by 96.5 percent of the same gas.

I'm not even sure if scientist can extrapolate on the effects when the difference in amounts is so great. How can they even expect to derive accurate models? My guess is that even these scientist must suspect that the model results are questionable but are to interested in the money they are receiving to question the results. No one wants to kill the golden goose.

AmPat
12-08-2009, 06:17 PM
Of those mixtures of other gasses, and the greenhouse gasses that do exist and are under attack, CO2 is NECESSARY for life! These idiots are stealing from us and I refuse to play the fool to there agenda. Liberals can add theives to the long list of labels they own.

Oh, BTW Wilbur of OZ, clouds are the biggest green house problem we have. Let's pass anti-cloud legislation while we have all the moonbats in charge.:cool:

FlaGator
12-08-2009, 06:30 PM
Of those mixtures of other gasses, and the greenhouse gasses that do exist and are under attack, CO2 is NECESSARY for life! These idiots are stealing from us and I refuse to play the fool to there agenda. Liberals can add theives to the long list of labels they own.

Oh, BTW Wilbur of OZ, clouds are the biggest green house problem we have. Let's pass anti-cloud legislation while we have all the moonbats in charge.:cool:

That is why AGW is one of those fuzzy sciences. There are so many variables that go in to predicting long range weather that adjusting just about any variable causes extreme changes in the overall model that get more extreme as the target date is extended. To make accurate models for predictions, the scientist need to know all the variable involved (which they don't) the exact state of all the variables (which according to quantum theory they can't) and then they have to factor in chaotic effects (from chaos theory) which they can't even guess at. By claiming that their models are accurate is an absolute lie. The best that they can say is that based on what they believe to be the current state of the climate here is what might happen 10 years out. Still its a guess because initial conditions are not completely know or understood and chaos become a greater factor the longer the model is run.

Last Samurai
12-08-2009, 08:51 PM
The whole issue hinges around NOT using fossel fuels. Instead we create a "panic" condition by which "alternate" sources of energy production can be "pushed off" on the population, funded by taxing the normal sources of energy.

While it is going to make "investors" in alternate energy rich, at least in the short run... from an average Joe point of view it will be catastrophically inefficient and costly. Net result of which will be a reduction in the buying power of our earnings. (Read: Standard of Living!)

The observation MUST be made that if "alternative" energy sources WERE more efficient cost wise, they would have already been wide spread.... made so by our capitalistic, efficiency seeking system.

At present, the best short term solution to our energy needs is nuclear...... but the greens have effectively "killed" that approach over the years. (Apparently they are still under the influence of bad 50's sci-fi movies of which the plot revolved around nuclearly perverted genes in animals, which, inevitably, had the uniform effect of making those animals both gigantic and man eaters.) (:rolleyes:) Alternately, nuclear power either caused you to bear two headed children or glow in the dark.

I suggest one turn to either France (70% nuke powered) or the offspring of Nuclear Sailors to put the lie to that idea. But, what the hell........ Urban Legends tend to die very slowly.

Either way, we are being sold a bill of goods here and it will have a very negative effect on our economy. (Like we need more of that!)

I wonder how much CO2 is generated if the population is forced to revert to burning trees to keep warm in the Winter? (Not being able to afford alternate fuels or systems.) Then again, if the trees are "poached" by citizens seeking warmth, that will, in turn, cause even less of the CO2 to be processed by them.

LS

AmPat
12-09-2009, 09:14 AM
At present, the best short term solution to our energy needs is nuclear...... but the greens have effectively "killed" that approach over the years. (Apparently they are still under the influence of bad 50's sci-fi movies of which the plot revolved around nuclearly perverted genes in animals, which, inevitably, had the uniform effect of making those animals both gigantic and man eaters.) () Alternately, nuclear power either caused you to bear two headed children or glow in the dark.India agrees with you. They bought Nuclear plants from Russia to meet their needs. We have safer and more efficient plants but the Indians knew that we are political idiots. We didn't need the contract anyway. Our economy is booming.:rolleyes:

NJCardFan
12-09-2009, 11:33 AM
I heard today on a news/talk radio program a comparison of the gasses that make up "greenhouse" gasses. He compared it to marbles of different colors. 100 marbles in a jar. Take out 78 blue ones and and 13 green , etc, etc. He eventually got down to 1 marble that he split with a "magic hammer" into 100 different marbles of different colors. He then got to 1 of these smaller marbles and said that it represented all the green house gasses collectively. Out of those gasses, CO2 was 5% of that. Of the total CO2 emitted by humans, the USA was responsible for 22%, a horrendous total. Of that, the total that the proposed cuts in CO2 emissions that the USA would commit to would not make any significant difference to world temperatures. Of course once we commit to these proposals, our energy would immediately be unaffordable and we would lose thousands of jobs. But have no fear, the DUmmycRATS in charge are fully committed to bankrupt our country to support this junk science hysteria.:mad:

Wait a minute. There are over 700 million more people in China than the US yet we're responsible for 22% of the CO2? And aren't there a billion people in India too?

Rockntractor
12-09-2009, 12:43 PM
The government will soon force this on us. We are approaching the point where there will no longer be any middle ground. You will either be for Obama and his socialist rule or you will be against it. The line is being drawn in the sand as we speak!

PoliCon
12-09-2009, 01:53 PM
Wait a minute. There are over 700 million more people in China than the US yet we're responsible for 22% of the CO2? And aren't there a billion people in India too?

You forget that we force India and China to produce CO2 with out dastardly desires for call centers and cheap decorations!:rolleyes:

AmPat
12-09-2009, 01:59 PM
Wait a minute. There are over 700 million more people in China than the US yet we're responsible for 22% of the CO2? And aren't there a billion people in India too?

That's whatb the guy said. Of course trust him more than the junk science moonbat (scientists) who are liberal weenies or outright thieves. We still have the highest consumption and output in the world. This despite the "Progressive's" best efforts to make us a third world country.

Last Samurai
12-09-2009, 04:52 PM
The greens should, by rights, be most upset about this. After all plants (trees) thrive off of CO2. Ya wants to process more CO2, plant more trees. I could live with that, so could the greens, according to their "manifesto" (read: platform).

LS

PoliCon
12-09-2009, 09:06 PM
The greens should, by rights, be most upset about this. After all plants (trees) thrive off of CO2. Ya wants to process more CO2, plant more trees. I could live with that, so could the greens, according to their "manifesto" (read: platform).

LS

That's assuming that what the Greens really want is more plants and not just more power over people.

Rockntractor
12-09-2009, 09:11 PM
That's assuming that what the Greens really want is more plants and not just more power over people.

Exactly! .They could care less about the environment it is all about control. The same goes for their health care