PDA

View Full Version : VENABLE: Texas fights global-warming power grab



PoliCon
08-25-2010, 11:47 PM
Lone Star state won't participate in Obama's lawless policy

By Peggy Venable
The Washington Times
6:08 p.m., Wednesday, August 25, 2010

The state's slogan is "Don't mess with Texas." But the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is doing just that, and at stake is whether the Obama administration can impose its global-warming agenda without a vote of Congress.

President Obama's EPA is already well down the path to regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, something the act was not designed to do. It has a problem, however, because shoehorning greenhouse gases into that 40-year-old law would force churches, schools, warehouses, commercial kitchens and other sources to obtain costly and time-consuming permits. It would grind the economy to a halt, and the likely backlash would doom the whole scheme.

The EPA, determined to move forward anyway, is attempting to rewrite the Clean Air Act administratively via a "tailoring rule," which would reduce the number of regulated sources. The problem with that approach? It's illegal. The EPA has no authority to rewrite the law. To pull it off, the EPA needs every state with a State Implementation Plan to rewrite all of its statutory thresholds as well.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Chairman Bryan W. Shaw saw the tailoring rule for what it really is: a massive power grab and centralization of authority. They are fighting back, writing to the EPA:

"In order to deter challenges to your plan for centralized control of industrial development through the issuance of permits for greenhouse gases, you have called upon each state to declare its allegiance to the Environmental Protection Agency's recently enacted greenhouse gas regulations - regulations that are plainly contrary to U.S. laws. ... To encourage acquiescence with your unsupported findings you threaten to usurp state enforcement authority and to federalize the permitting program of any state that fails to pledge their fealty to the Environmental Protection Agency. On behalf of the State of Texas, we write to inform you that Texas has neither the authority nor the intention of interpreting, ignoring or amending its laws in order to compel the permitting of greenhouse gas emissions."

Texas leaders are . . . CONTINUED (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/25/texas-fights-global-warming-power-grab/)

NJCardFan
08-26-2010, 01:51 AM
When I saw Venable in the title, I thought this:
http://www.nerdbaseball.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/venable-max.jpg

Odysseus
08-26-2010, 10:01 AM
When I saw Venable in the title, I thought this:
http://www.nerdbaseball.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/venable-max.jpg

Understandable that you'd equate Reds and Red State. :D

Proud Infidel
08-27-2010, 07:44 AM
OF COURSE, [wannabe] Emperor Obama sees total Federal control over as much as can be as the only way to do things, he and his ilk are only concerned with acquiring more power over everyone's lives and keeping it that way, following the traditions of his idols, Stalin, Mao, Lenin.......

hazlnut
08-29-2010, 09:32 PM
I don't know Peggy Venable from Jack, but she's running her mouth and sounding like a big friggin' idiot.



President Obama's EPA is already well down the path to regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, something the act was not designed to do. It has a problem, however, because shoehorning greenhouse gases into that 40-year-old law would force churches, schools, warehouses, commercial kitchens and other sources to obtain costly and time-consuming permits. It would grind the economy to a halt, and the likely backlash would doom the whole scheme.

The EPA, determined to move forward anyway, is attempting to rewrite the Clean Air Act administratively via a "tailoring rule," which would reduce the number of regulated sources. The problem with that approach? It's illegal. The EPA has no authority to rewrite the law. To pull it off, the EPA needs every state with a State Implementation Plan to rewrite all of its statutory thresholds as well.

Um... yeah, dummy, yeah they do.

You know who says so??

The Supreme fucking court. The conservative-leaning supreme court said so back in 2007....


Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007),[1] is a U.S. Supreme Court case decided 5-4 in which twelve states and several cities of the United States brought suit against the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to force that federal agency to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as pollutants.

...snip...

First, the petitioners were found to have standing.[5] Justice Stevens reasoned that the states had a particularly strong interest in the standing analysis.[6] The majority cited Justice Holmes' opinion in Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co.:

...snip...

Second, the Court held that the Clean Air Act gives the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases. The Clean Air Act provides:




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._Environmental_Protection_Agency

End of thread. Some better educated Venable.

Rockntractor
08-29-2010, 09:39 PM
The Supreme fucking court.

You have little respect for anyone or anything anymore do you?

PoliCon
08-29-2010, 09:47 PM
You have little respect for anyone or anything anymore do you?

He never has - he's just stopped playing like he did.

Rockntractor
08-29-2010, 09:54 PM
He never has - he's just stopped playing like he did.
Badcat could likely prove with his new program that this is not the same individual that opened the account.

hazlnut
08-29-2010, 11:31 PM
You have little respect for anyone or anything anymore do you?

No, I just can't believe 3 years after SCOTUS already ruled on this, some dimwit still doesn't get it.

The EPA can and should be regulating greenhouse gasses.

I respect the court's decision, the person who wrote the article does not.

PoliCon
08-29-2010, 11:36 PM
No, I just can't believe 3 years after SCOTUS already ruled on this, some dimwit still doesn't get it.

The EPA can and should be regulating greenhouse gasses.

I respect the court's decision, the person who wrote the article does not.

The court has been wrong before. Dred Scott anyone?? And please save the crap that a conservative court made the ruling. Having 4 strict constructionist justices does not give conservative a majority. :rolleyes:

Rockntractor
08-29-2010, 11:36 PM
No, I just can't believe 3 years after SCOTUS already ruled on this, some dimwit still doesn't get it.

The EPA can and should be regulating greenhouse gasses.

I respect the court's decision, the person who wrote the article does not.

Normally someone that respects something doesn't use that kind of language in casual comments and neither did you before.
i never agreed with you in the past but i respected your reasoned manner. You are not the same anymore.

hazlnut
08-29-2010, 11:40 PM
He never has - he's just stopped playing like he did.

Yeah, I aways kept my stance on the environment and GW a secret....:rolleyes::rolleyes:

The first f-ing post I ever made on CU was in the Weather board...

I am at the point now where I'm pissed Al Gore ever got into the GW debate and made it more partisan then it had to be. There's plenty of people in the GOP that are not Jim Inhofs controlled by Energy Interests, and they would support smart legislation, but the whole issue has been muddied by f-ing partisan politics.

This summer has seen unprecedented weather/climate events. Next winter will too.

The EPA needs to step up and do what SCOTUS ordered them to do 3 years ago!!

Does VENABLE realize this is quickly becoming a National Security issue as 3rd world countries suffer massive crop losses and population migration? The DoD considers GW a very real National Security issue.:cool:

hazlnut
08-29-2010, 11:43 PM
Normally someone that respects something doesn't use that kind of language in casual comments and neither did you before.
i never agreed with you in the past but i respected your reasoned manner. You are not the same anymore.

the f-ing was more directed at the stupidity of the person who wrote the article -- VENABLE??

Not the judges on SCOTUS.

I am equally upset at the EPA for dragging ass, waiting for some legislative direction. F-that. Do what SCOTUS told you to do. Regulate greenhouse gases!

hazlnut
08-29-2010, 11:43 PM
The court has been wrong before. Dred Scott anyone?? And please save the crap that a conservative court made the ruling. Having 4 strict constructionist justices does not give conservative a majority. :rolleyes:

At the time the court was right of center. FACT.

Kay
08-29-2010, 11:51 PM
Last time I was in California, it looked to me like your air was a heck of a lot more
polluted than our air here in Texas. Take care of your own backyard before you
start trying to regulate mine. The EPA, the SCOTUS and the Hazlnut all need to
butt out of our business.

hazlnut
08-30-2010, 12:19 AM
Last time I was in California, it looked to me like your air was a heck of a lot more
polluted than our air here in Texas. Take care of your own backyard before you
start trying to regulate mine. The EPA, the SCOTUS and the Hazlnut all need to
butt out of our business.

Let's see... Houston is #7 most polluted city and Dallas is #13.

So, all that talking out your collective asses has had some negative effect.

California is definitely the worst air quality in the country -- but the lone star state blows us away as far as greenhouse gas emissions. It's all that steak.

PoliCon
08-30-2010, 12:24 AM
At the time the court was right of center. FACT.

Bullshit. 4 conservative justices does not make the court right of center. :rolleyes:

PoliCon
08-30-2010, 12:26 AM
I honestly believe that every AGW alarmist - every TOOL that believes that humanity is big enough to effect the climate - should do the right thing and end their own life.

Rockntractor
08-30-2010, 12:36 AM
Bullshit. 4 conservative justices does not make the court right of center. :rolleyes:

This is the new math, you know, the one that turns a crowd of 350,000 into 85,000.






and by the way his references to politifact in other threads is suspect to me. I can only find liberal agencies using them.