>
The problem many people have, including myself, is that the EPA is using the Clean Air Act as an excuse to limit the emission of carbon dioxide
Dear Mr. DuBois:
Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.
A 2007 Supreme Court Decision, Massachusetts v. EPA, compelled EPA to address whether greenhouse gases are air pollutants that endanger public health and welfare, and if so to embark on a regulatory course that is prescribed by statute. Having made an affirmative decision on the endangerment question, EPA is now proceeding with regulations. EPA’s regulations focused first on the transportation sector with the issuance of standards for light-duty vehicles and proposed standards for medium and heavy vehicles.
With regard to stationary sources, EPA first targeted the largest new sources and major modifications of existing sources and recently announced plans to develop new source performance standards for the electric utility and refinery sectors. Such standards are the traditional approach used under the Clean Air Act and are generally implemented through state programs. The regulations are being developed on a time frame consistent with Clean Air Act requirements covering other pollutants to allow covered sources the flexibility of developing compliance plans that cost-effectively meet a comprehensive set of requirements.
Thank you again for contacting me.
Senator Lautenberg
Dear Senator Lautenberg,
on the surface, your response is correct. The problem is that it is too general. I think we all agree that the EPA must necessarily regulate the emission of certain materials, such as mercury, sulphur, etc. The problem many people have, including myself, is that the EPA is using the Clean Air Act as an excuse to limit the emission of carbon dioxide, which is not in the same category as other substances that are harmful and /or carcinogenic. The EPA is illegally “regulating” carbon dioxide to get around Congress so they can benefit those who believe it is responsible for so-called climate change. It is not. Over the past year, so much evidence has been uncovered, not just showing that data was fraudulently skewed and scientists lied, to make it appear that carbon dioxide was causing the earth to heat, but that current measurements prove that the earth is not heating at all (a fraction of one degree, if at all), and actually has been in a cooling cycle. Just within the past month, scientists at NASA have shown that the earth actually dissipates carbon dioxide into space at a much greater rate than the climate change liars have stated. While many, including myself, originally accepted the climate change claims, most of us have seriously studied the new data and the proof that so much of Al Gore’s initial claims are invalid. Cap and Trade couldn’t be pushed through the Senate for a reason; too many Senators realized it was a scam. The President, Al Gore, Goldman Sachs, Bill Ayers, and George Soros were among the few who were able to own all the shares of the Chicago Climate (Carbon?) Exchange, which would have eventually done 17 trillion in business a year, making them all billionaires. That’s the truth behind regulating greenhouse gasses – greed.
I have no arguement with your citing the Court decision that greenhouse gasses that are harmful should be regulated. However, carbon dioxide is not a harmful gas, and should not be included in the listing. Those who claimed it was harmful have been refuted – after all, it is what you exhale with every breath, and what trees use to make oxygen. The EPA, at the President’s urging, I’m sure, is overstepping its authority by trying to control it. That is something that must come from Congress, if at all.
Sincerely, Ronald
