The Gettysburg Of US Climate Action: Clean Air Act Could/Could Not Be Used To Cost-Effectively Regulate Green House Gases?
by John Laumer, Philadelphia on 07. 6.08
Here's a glimpse at what went on behind closed doors in Washington DC, prior to the G8 summit being held in Japan. The door opens with this citation from two battle-embedded reporters for Dow Jones Newswire:
The White House is fighting an intense private battle with officials at the Environmental Protection Agency to prevent the publication of a document that could become the legal road map for regulation of greenhouse gas emissions across the U.S. economy, according to people close to the matter.Senior White House officials are eager to prevent the original document from being published because it is in opposition to their belief that regulating emissions could create major policy havoc.
Free-Market Utopians have unleashed their ideological bombardment, softening up USEPA defenses in a Climate Wars equivalent of Picketts Charge: they are desperate to preclude any action on the precept that 'public welfare is endangered [by climate change] and that there is, on balance, a positive cost-benefit to society, both domestically and internationally, from regulating greenhouse gases.' Climate Wars. The tipping point approaches.
Who will read the Gettysburg-Like Address, once the battle is won?
Via::Dow Jones Newswire White House Fights To Edit EPA Document Outlining GHG Regs Image credit:: Picketts Charge Defense, Wikipedia
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Great Debate Tackles Climate Change
- What Will Business Get From Poznan?
- Mythical Hybrid Beast To Battle Climate Change
- Has Obama's Inauguration Speech Been Leaked?
This administration is not just stupid, it's immoral!
We need to fight Global warming the way General Meade fought the rebels at Gettysburg..............head on! Global warming is no longer just some egghead theory. It's reality and unfortunately its changing our environment faster than we anticipated. Every citizen, every metropolis, every industry needs to do the responsible thing and act globally.
May God preserve us from ourselves.
I wasn't aware that the economics of the damage caused, and to be caused, by climate change cared about what senior white house officials believed. I also wasn't aware that policy havoc was an inherently bad thing when Americans are calling for a dramatic change in policy with regard to greenhouse gases.
Beyond that, when the Supreme Court decided in Massachusetts vs. the EPA that CO2 was a pollutant, under the Clean Air Act as passed by Congress, and thus that the EPA had the authority and obligation to regulate CO2, as such, I must have missed the part where they added, "unless the White House doesn't think so."
Are there really economists still out there who believe the economic costs of acting to reduce and then eliminate greenhouse gas emissions will be greater than the economic costs of letting climate change just take its toll until we run out of fossil fuels and are left with no renewable/sustainable (or at the very least more abundant (like uranium, thorium, or deuterium) source of energy? That the loss of drinking water and arable land from desertification and declining snow packs, the rise in sea levels from melting ice and warming oceans, the potential collapse of ocean life and ocean currents from warming and acidifying water, and the loss of biodiversity (and thus any discoveries that could have been made from studying new species) won't be important? If you do I'd like the meet them. Whether I'd prefer to have a stimulating debate on these questions or to force them to live mining coal would depend on what they have to say.
This post is very, very frustrating to read, because to me it means there really is nothing anyone in government can do for another 6 months.
The White House is certainly consistent, expecially in the issue of climate change: deny and delay...DB