The EPA’s Carbon Footprint

Federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions will impose new controls on millions of Americans.

On December 7, as delegates from around the world gathered in Copenhagen for the United Nations climate conference, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson announced that her bureaucracy would begin to regulate the emission of carbon dioxide and other gases deemed to be warming the planet. “Today, I’m proud to announce that EPA has finalized its endangerment finding on greenhouse gas pollution,” Jackson proclaimed. As a consequence, the agency “is now authorized and obligated to take reasonable efforts to reduce greenhouse pollutants under the Clean Air Act.”

“Reasonable” here is in the eye of the beholder. The 1990 Clean Air Act was designed for conventional air pollutants such as particulates and ozone smog, not for carbon dioxide. Applying those rules to CO2 will mean imposing costly regulations not just on cars and factories but on commercial buildings, churches, and even residences. All told, more than 1 million entities could become subject to new federal controls on greenhouse emissions.

The EPA power grab was no surprise; indeed, it was inevitable. The regulatory train was set in motion in 2007, when the Supreme Court ruled by a 5-4 vote in Massachusetts v. EPA that the Clean Air Act applied to greenhouse gases. The EPA probably would have made the same move had John McCain been president, by court order if not voluntarily. Now that the train is picking up speed, it will be almost impossible to stop and difficult to control. If you think federal environmental regulation is costly and inefficient, you ain’t seen nothing yet. 

Orders From the Court

The push to extend the Clean Air Act began late in the Clinton administration. In 1998, during a House Appropriations Committee hearing, EPA Administrator Carol Browner told Congress that existing law provided enough authority for the agency to begin regulating the greenhouse gases that environmentalists fear are warming the planet past the point of no return.  An EPA legal memorandum on this point soon followed. Environmental groups then tried to force the agency’s hand by filing a petition demanding regulation, but the Clinton White House, still smarting over a failed 1993 attempt to impose a nation-wide energy tax, was in no rush to adopt such far-reaching regulations.

By the time the Bush administration took over, the greens were tired of waiting for an answer. In 2002, the petitioners sued the EPA for failing to act. The Bush EPA formally denied the petition in 2003, on grounds that it lacked the authority to regulate greenhouse gases because the Clean Air Act was written to address localized air pollutants, not globally dispersed emissions such as carbon dioxide. If Washington wanted to fight climate change, the administration argued, coordinated international efforts made more sense than haphazard regulation via a law written in a different time for a different purpose.

The petitioners, now joined by several northeastern states and others, promptly sued. They prevailed in 2007, when the Supreme Court’s narrow majority concluded that the EPA had power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and had acted arbitrarily in declining to exercise the Clean Air Act’s underlying authority.

Under the original law, the EPA is required to regulate any emissions that “cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” According to the five-justice majority, the six greenhouse gases cited by the petitioners—carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride—“fit well within the Clean Air Act’s capacious definition of ‘air pollutant,’ ” as they contribute to the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which in turn contribute to a gradual warming that could “threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.” Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens brushed aside concerns that a complex regulatory statute designed to combat local pollution problems was a poor fit for global climate control. EPA regulation of greenhouse gases “would lead to no…extreme measures,” he wrote.

The Supreme Court stopped short of ordering the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases, but the writing was on the wall. If the EPA concluded that, per the Clean Air Act, greenhouse gas emissions “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,” the agency would now be legally obligated to regulate. Since even the Bush EPA had repeatedly warned that global warming was a problem the nation “must address,” greenhouse gas regulation became a question of “when,” not “if.” 

Not Just Cars and Trucks

The immediate consequence of the sweeping new EPA authority will be more stringent regulation of automobiles. Section 202 of the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to adopt emission controls once an “endangerment” finding is made. In September, anticipating that finding, the EPA and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration proposed new regulations that would effectively require automakers to produce cars and light trucks with an average fuel efficiency rating of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016. According to the EPA’s own estimates, the regulations could cost automakers more than $50 billion and increase new vehicle prices by an average of $1,000. The rules could also reduce auto safety by encouraging production of lighter, smaller cars. With the endangerment finding on the books, a final rule should follow shortly.

That won’t be the only new regulation set in motion. While the EPA made its endangerment finding under Section 202, other provisions of the act have virtually identical language. For example, Section 111, which governs emissions for newly built or modified industrial facilities, likewise requires the agency to set standards for stationary sources of emissions that cause or contribute to “air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” If the EPA must regulate automotive emissions under Section 202, it will also have to set standards for newly constructed industrial facilities under Section 111.

And that just scratches the surface of the EPA’s potential greenhouse impact. Under Section 165 of the Clean Air Act, when companies construct or modify any facility that qualifies as a “major” stationary source of air pollution, they are required to adopt the “best available control technology” for all emissions subject to regulation by any part of the act. The law defines a “major” source as a facility that has the potential to emit 250 tons per year of a regulated pollutant (or, for some specified facilities, 100 tons per year). For traditional air pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxides, these thresholds mean that only the biggest and dirtiest facilities, amounting to several thousand nationwide, are subject to federal controls. 

Carbon dioxide, however, is a ubiquitous by-product of modern industrial society. (Indeed, some efforts to control traditional pollutants increase carbon dioxide emissions by design, as a by-product of more complete combustion.) Plenty of industrial facilities emit more than 250 tons of carbon dioxide per year. So do many commercial and residential buildings. The EPA itself estimates that a strict application of Section 165 would increase the number of required air pollution permits “more than 140-fold.” A study commissioned by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce goes even further, estimating that the 250-ton threshold would encompass nearly 200,000 manufacturing facilities, approximately 20,000 farms, and at least 1 million commercial buildings, including a substantial percentage of hospitals, hotels, large restaurants, and even some churches. On average, the Chamber of Commerce study reported, “a building with over 40,000 square feet uses enough hydrocarbons to become a regulated source.” And since the act applies to all facilities with the mere potential to emit 250 tons in a year, the regulatory net could be spread even wider.

Just one EPA permit for a new or modified source can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars for the applicant and require more than 300 person-hours for a regulatory agency. Adding hundreds of thousands of new permit seekers would likely overwhelm the state agencies that typically implement EPA rules, causing extensive delays and cost increases. It would be a substantial new burden on an already struggling economy.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Tony||

    So what's CATO's brilliant solution to dealing with greenhouse gas emissions? All I see is a bunch of "sky is falling" excuses for why we shouldn't do anything to change the industrial status quo.

  • WyoDave||

    Whatever it is, it's got to be better than requiring a Title V permit to any entity that has the potential to emit more than 10 tons of CO2 per year.

  • Mr. J||

    For starters, you should stop breathing. How dare you squander precious O2 and convert it into CO2 without a permit!

  • Chad||

    Get back to me when either

    A: You understand the carbon cycle

    or

    B: You catch me drinking motor oil

  • Mr. J||

    You never told me you went by Tony.

    And I've already caught you drinking it once before.

    Is it some ritual form of environmental self mortification?

  • Mr. J||

    You never told me you went by Tony.

    And I've already caught you drinking it once before.

    Is it some ritual form of environmental self mortification?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    So what's CATO's brilliant solution to dealing with greenhouse gas emissions?

    What would be the solution to Santa's reindeers pooping all over us? This problem carries pretty much the same weight as the problem you posit:

    NADA. CERO.

  • Tony||

    So... there are no greenhouse gas emissions?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    So... there are no greenhouse gas emissions?

    So . . . are THEY a problem? It is one thing that there are emissions - QUITE another that they pose a problem. That's the debate, not their existence.

    And those flying reindeer sure poop a lot - somebody must do something!

  • ||

    Or, even if one were to stipulate to the dubious series of propositions that there is significant climate change not due to natural causes AND it is caused by humans AND the human source is primarily caused by burning fossil fuels AND the net effects would be harmful and not beneficial AND that the U.S. government acting unilaterally can do anything about this alleged problem that wouldn't be counteracted by other nations like China or India ramping up their industrial production AND that this unilateral change would produce greater benefits than the costs of the intervention AND ...

    Well, everyone who is not a liberal should be able to see that there are a lot of conditions all necessary to make this a good idea, any one of which, if false, would sink the "solution" offered by the Tonys of the world.

  • Tony||

    But it's established fact--not to mention basic chemistry--that they are a problem.

    Just because you don't understand basic chemistry doesn't mean the world's scientists are similarly uninformed.

  • juris imprudent||

    Tony, would you like cake?

  • ||

    Tony, would you like cake?

    They all want cake.

  • Suki||

    +1

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    But it's established fact--not to mention basic chemistry--that they are a problem.

    Basic knowledge about "basic chemistry", from the viewpoint of an engineer: What you learn in the lab SELDOM WORKS in real life, otherwise making tasty cakes would be so much easier.

    Just because you don't understand basic chemistry doesn't mean the world's scientists are similarly uninformed.

    It's not chemistry the scientists are looking at but temperature change. The AGW theory proponents say the "rising" temperatures are caused by CO2 emissions from human activity. Many others disagree, but that has NOTHING to do with the chemistry of CO2 - it has to do with its PHYSICAL properties.

    Numbskull.

  • Tony||

    Does chemistry have to do with something other than the physical properties of chemicals? What the hell are you talking about? You should spend less time calling people names and more time learning the basics.

    That CO2 is a heat-trapping gas is beyond dispute, so what's your point again?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Does chemistry have to do with something other than the physical properties of chemicals?

    Of course not, but its heat-trapping ability has to do with its physical properties and not its chemical (i.e. ion exchanging) properties.

    That CO2 is a heat-trapping gas is beyond dispute, so what's your point again?

    The point is that as an atmospheric gas, it is not as FORMIDABLE a heat trapping gas as you want or have been lead to believe. THAT'S the point.

    The other point is that whatever you see happening under lab conditions does not always translate into exact behavior in the field. THIS FACT alone made me a bit skeptical at first about AGW. Now after the IPCC's crass blunders and the East Anglia demonstrating it is nothing more than a flim-flam factory, my initial skepticism has grown to become total disbelief.

  • Chad||

    Tony is right. OM, you are just confused and conflated, as usual. The term "chemistry" in the general case includes "physical chemistry". Since Tony used it in the general case, he was correct. OM is correct insofar that it is largely the physical properties of CO2 that matter in this case; however, that is still part of chemistry (and physics, too).

    OM, there are multiple, independant lines of evidence that lead to the same conclusion: A doubling of CO2 will warm the earth by about 3C. This includes modern temperature data, past paleoclimate studies, and physical models of the future. There is no doubt that CO2 is a major, if not the primary, thermostat that moderates our temperature.

    Here is a nice question. Three billion years ago, the sun was more than 20% dimmer than it is now. The earth was covered in liquid water, even though basic physics would indicate that it should have been a ball of ice. What kept it warm back then?

    Pro-tip hint: It starts with C and ands with 2.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Chad,

    You have been so useful by determining that both Tony and I were right. Thank you again for clearing that one up.

    OM, there are multiple, independant lines of evidence that lead to the same conclusion: A doubling of CO2 will warm the earth by about 3C.

    Linky-link, please! That's a bold statement, especially considering the complexity of the earth's climate.

    This includes modern temperature data, past paleoclimate studies, and physical models of the future.

    Oh, give me a break, Chad! What "physical models" of the future? Mann's?

    There is no doubt that CO2 is a major, if not the primary, thermostat that moderates our temperature.

    Yeah - notwithstanding water vapor, the oceans, land, methane, sunspots . . . mere trivialities, compare to the awsomeness of CO2. We all should bow to its greatness . . .

    Here is a nice question. Three billion years ago, the sun was more than 20% dimmer than it is now. The earth was covered in liquid water, even though basic physics would indicate that it should have been a ball of ice. What kept it warm back then?

    How about this - WHO CARES? Earth 4 billion years ago is NOT today's Earth nor are the conditions the same.

    Also, you forgot methane (starts with a C and ends with a 4) - where do you think all those wonderful aminoacids that started life came from?

  • Chad||

    God, OM. Do you just make stuff up, or are you really that grossly ignorant? Let's start with more 101-level stuff, like the fact that Mann isn't a climate modeller.

    Since that alone proves that you are either grossly misinformed or an outright liar, I will leave it at that.

    How about this - WHO CARES? Earth 4 billion years ago is NOT today's Earth nor are the conditions the same

    You should care, because the ANSWER is that CO2 levels were much higher. On geologic scales, rock weathering slows when it is cold, allowing CO2 to accumulate in the atmosphere, raising temperatures. How much? Oh, about 3 degrees for every doubling of CO2. What a frickin' coincidence.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Chad,

    God, OM. Do you just make stuff up, or are you really that grossly ignorant? Let's start with more 101-level stuff, like the fact that Mann isn't a climate modeller[sic].

    Right - that requires a ver, VERY narrow definition of the word "model", Chad. How . . . what's the word? Ah: Dishonest.

    Since that alone proves that you are either grossly misinformed or an outright liar, I will leave it at that.

    Your retort shows something, all right: Your fruitcakeness.

    You should care, because the ANSWER is that CO2 levels were much higher.

    Chad, when I ask: Who Cares? The reason is because the Earth of 4 billion (or 3 billion) years ago is totally different from today's except in mass and size. The fact that there was MORE CO2 (oh, and by the way, METHANE AND WATER VAPOR galore) is irrelevant when it comes to TODAY'S Earth and today's atmosphere.

    You're grasping at straws.

  • ||

    Gee, I would like to participate in this discussion but I have to go out in the cold and burn my trash in the burn barrel. I love to watch that CO2 laden blue black smoke swirl into the clean Arizona Sky.

  • ||

    If you had just said 'Physics' instead of 'Chemistry' he would not have been forced to use an ad hom attack on you.

    It's all your fault. ;)

  • Sam Grove||

    It has not been established the anthropogenic CO2 is significantly altering the climate.

    It has not been established that positive feedback is greater than negative feedback.

    It has not be established that the IPCC projections are descriptive of the next century.

    It has not been established that likely warming is a net negative for humankind.

    What is known is that the percentage of atmospheric CO2 is determined largely by ocean temperatures, and that this is affected by both water vapor and cloud cover.

  • Chad||

    It has not been established that positive feedback is greater than negative feedback.

    What negative feedback?

    Let alone one large enough to offset every greenhouse gas AND the water vapor feedback AND the ice feedback AND the methane feedback.

  • juris imprudent||

    What negative feedback?

    Y'know, the stuff where we keep saying you are full of shit!

    Seriously, dude, you are questioning negative feedback?

  • Chad||

    What negative feedback?

  • ||

    One example of negative feedback would be increased H2O evaporation leading to increased cloud coverage, reflecting more light (heat) into space.

  • ||

  • ||

    The most significant greenhouse gas, one that is present in higher concentrations in the atmosphere, and one with a demonstrable positive feedback loop, is water vapor.

    All you environutbags whining that you want fuel cells and hydrogen energy are destroying the planet!

  • Chad||

    Ahh, if only water vapor remained in the atmosphere and was not in a fast equilibrium with the oceans, because then you would have a point.

  • MJ||

    You mean like how carbon dioxide remains permanently in the atmosphhere and is not sequestered into complex carbohydrates by those things called plants?

  • Chad||

    The residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is several hundred years. Give it a few millenia, and yes, the oceans and plants will eventually clean it up.

  • ||

    And the residence time of Water Vapor is measured in Days
    http://tinyurl.com/yz43fpw

  • ||

    "So... there are no greenhouse gas emissions?"

    Swimming pools evaporate into greenhouse gases too. In fact about 90+% of them of them are water vapor. Should the EPA regulate swimming pools too?

    Somebody should bring suit that if the EPA is not going to regulate the most concentrated greenhouse gas then it shouldn't regulate the least of them.

  • Ratko||

    "The sky is falling"...what ever do you mean by that? You must be talking about the absurd labeling of carbon dioxide, without which there'd be no life on this planet, as a "pollutant." Yes, I agree it's about as dumb of thing as any of us have ever seen a bunch of the sky is falling alarmists pull yet. Of course you and I know we like every other animal on the planet exhale CO2 with every breath and the plants the food chain would be broken without would die without it, in fact most plants would really appreciate an increase in CO2 levels with around 600ppm being optimum.

    Some day if you have the time and would be willing to do so you should tell me more about yourself, Tony. I'm sincerely interested in knowing how it is you managed to survive up until now. Having given the matter some thought the only two possibilities I could think of that could offer an explanation would be you are a young child, perhaps being home schooled, or an adult living in a supervised environment. If either is correct I wouldn't be so blunt with you. If neither is correct then it's amazing you some how escaped detection to slip out on your own and baffling how you kept yourself alive.

  • Jonathan H. Adler||

    This article is just about the implications of the EPA's endangerment finding. Elsewhere I've written about policy measures I'd support, including a revenue-neutral carbon tax and technology-inducement prizes.

    JHA

  • The Gobbler||

    My balls are dry. Where's MNG?

    Scientist admits there has been no global warming since 1995

    The global warming movement is facing a one-two punch today, as a key figure of the Climategate scandal admitted that there is no evidence the earth has warmed recently and new research suggests existing records aren’t sufficient support for global warming claims.

    Phil Jones, who stepped down from his position at the Climatic Research Unit after emails surfaced showing the unit apparently conspiring to manipulate climate data, also said global warming may not be unprecedented after all.

    READ JONES’ ‘INCONVENIENT INTERVIEW’ WITH THE BBC HERE

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

  • ||

    Looks like the science is finally settled.

  • The Gobbler||

    Even so, my balls are still dry. Where's MNG???

  • Tony||

    BBC:

    How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

    Jones:

    I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.
  • ||

    You're funny, Tony.

  • Tony||

    It is pretty funny when someone's claims are undermined by the very link they provide to supposedly bolster them.

  • ||

    So, even though he lied, and faked the data, the conclusions he draws from his lies should be believed? Cause he said so?

    Come on, Tony, even you can't be that stupid, can you?

  • Suki||

    What is it with cults started by people named Jones?

  • Tony||

    So you believe him when he says something you suppose to confirm your preconceived beliefs (they don't, btw), but you disregard him when he says something that contradicts them?

    Have you or Gobbler read the article yet? Or did Drudge just tell you what it says in a short headline, perhaps italicized and underlined?

  • Thomas||

    Drudge?!? Do you even know what site you're on, Tony?

  • Tony||

    All too well.

  • ||

    So you believe him when he says something you suppose to confirm your preconceived beliefs (they don't, btw), but you disregard him when he says something that contradicts them?

    No, you stupid asswipe, I don't believe him no matter what he says. If he said "AGW is pure bullshit" I would actually question my belief in that area, because, to date, he is full of shit. If he said "Tony is a Leftard moron" I might even question that!

  • ||

    A-Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

    An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.

    Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

    I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

    So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

    B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

    Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

    C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

    No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.

    D - Do you agree that natural influences could have contributed significantly to the global warming observed from 1975-1998, and, if so, please could you specify each natural influence and express its radiative forcing over the period in Watts per square metre.

    This area is slightly outside my area of expertise.
  • ||

    So he's qualified to tell us if humans are the cause, but he's unqualified to identify natural sources as the cause?

    Am i missing something? Or is this just the normal reaction when one's brain is working and it detects bullshit?

    The Science is Still Settled® though, so whatever.

  • Tony||

    He said that without human activity, we should expect cooling instead of warming. They've ruled out all natural causes of the warming.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    They've ruled out all natural causes of the warming.

    Oh - did the sun turn off itself?

    And who's "They"? The AGW Sanhedrin?

  • Tony||

    They've ruled the sun out, which has been relatively stable during the period in question.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    They've ruled the sun out, which has been relatively stable during the period in question.

    Again, who's "they"? The AGW Sanhedrin? And sun spot activity correlates perfectly with temperatures, Tony - you have NO idea of what you're talking about.

  • ||

    They've ruled the sun out, which has been relatively stable during the period in question.

    Boy, you are not even right twice a day like a stopped clock. There has been a significant difference in solar output. Google Solar Cycle 24...

  • ||

    By "they" I suppose you mean the lying, cheating bastards that were living off a lie at tax payers expense. Scientists even the honest, intelligent ones have little idea of how the sun changes over 50 years, a 1,000 years, a million or billion years. So the statement "they've ruled the sun out" means nothing!

  • Suki||

    wylie,

    Natural humans don't count. It's the artificial humans that are the problem.

    Right Tony?

  • ||

    Sorry, i forgot. Same reason the 3rd world, with its rampant deforestation, gets off the hook right? Or is it cause we MAKE THEM cut down all their trees? I don't keep up with the dogma.

    I'm not just talking about the chopping down. also the direct use as fuel or conversion to charcoal for fuel.

    But it's ok, cause that's like how Noble Savages did it.

  • Suki||

    Noble Savage would be a cool radio show name.

  • Triumph||

    Why yes! Yes it would! There is no better name for a radio show. Truly the best! For me to poop on!

  • Tony||

    You damn well know what is meant by natural vs. artificial causes of warming.

  • Chad||

    A-Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

    Oh, how it is so funny that you are smart enough to note the more-or-less constant upward sloping portions, but fail to notice that the downward phases have shifted from "big" to "medium" to "flat".

    Sorry, but I just caught you with your hands in the cherry basket, proving, yet again, that you are dishonest.

  • Mike M.||

    I'll give the original decline hider some credit: he has moved about halfway towards the truth, but unfortunately he is still telling some bald-faced lies.

    He admits that there is no significant difference between the size of the increase in the most recent warming period ending in '98 and those that occured from 1860-80 and 1910-1940, but he then makes the absolutely preposterous claim that the earlier two were due to natural causes, but the more recent one isn't.

    Secondly, he laughably claims to have "lost" the data sets that were being requested by others, and that he didn't turn them over because the data "wasn't well enough organized", which isn't a valid excuse to begin with.

    Quit lying Jones; you didn't turn over the data and even ended up going so far as to destroy it because it was such strong evidence against you, and you damn well knew it.

  • ||

    The guys' area of research is to organize and interpret mass amounts of climate data into some kind of verifiable and coherent trend. Yet, she says "I am just not good at keeping and organizing data". He is admiting that is by definition a terrible researched. I mean how can you do any effective climate research if you are not good at collecting and organizing data. It is like a physicist admitting "I am not terribly good at math.

    It is interesting just what mediocrities these guys have turned out to be. I mean seriously, these guys can't even run a believable fake letalone do science.

  • Mike M.||

    Agreed. What a joke these guys are!

    One guy who deserves some kudos today for honesty though is John Christy at Hunstville. He just came out and make the incredible admission that virtually the entire historical temperature data record is basically worthless, and shouldn't be considered evidence for anything.

  • Jimmy 'Crack' Corn||

    One guy who deserves some kudos today for honesty though is John Christy at Hunstville. He just came out and make the incredible admission that virtually the entire historical temperature data record is basically worthless.

    I googled this and didn't find it. Could you cite the source of this?

  • Suki||

    Organizing your data is not as important as getting people to do what you want them to do.

  • ||

    The wise villain understands that organizing your data properly is central to getting people to do what you want them to.

  • Suki||

    Who loses the data that they were using to get others to do what they want?

  • ||

    Hence the "wise" qualifier.

  • Suki||

    +1 ;)

  • Thomas||

    Why does the interviewer only bring up the Medieval Warm Period to counter the unprecedented claim, when the Holocene Thermal Maximum, aka the Mid-Holocene Hypsithermic period was much warmer over a much larger area? Citing this is much more effective against their 'unprecedented' claims.

    While, the other supposed cause for concern that AGW scare-mongers cite is the speed with which climate is supposedly changing. They say that lifeforms and ecosystems can't adapt that quickly. What about the speed with which the Younger Dryas period began? http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....112421.htm

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Thomas,

    Citing this [the Holocene Thermal Maximum] is much more effective against their 'unprecedented' claims.

    Because it never happened! Nothing to see here! Move along! Science is settled!

  • Thomas||

    Oh, I forgot to cite this as well:
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....142112.htm

  • Almanian||

    Cause "Medieval Warm Period" is much easier to say and write than "Holocene Thermal Maximum, aka the Mid-Holocene Hypsithermic period"?

    Well, easier for someone like me, who's not as all-knowing as Tony.

  • Ratko||

    From that Q&A I sense Professor Phil Jones may have a little nervous sweat dripping off his balls. Understandable knowing some in his government are discussing filing criminal charges against him and his pals. And here we sit in the USA our politicians having given them billions of our dollars and now doing nothing but pretending nothing happened.

    Jones states he wishes people would spend as much time reading his papers as his emails. Oh really, and we're to just accept his word and over look the fact they won't reveal the methods used to arrive at their conclusions. Outside private commercial and military research that's unheard of and absurd.

    They better start doing some serious explaining soon, if they won't spill their guts and help undo the damage they've helped cause then they need to be dragged into court and have it pulled out of them.

    Funny how anyone with common sense was being bribed by oil companies (speculation, the green "science" specialty) yet they are raking in mountains of cash for their fraudulent "research" (documented).

  • The Gobbler||

    So why is the EPA still trying to solve a problem we now know doesn't exist? Who the fuck do we sue?

  • juris imprudent||

    The same reason the govt is still handing out a subsidy for mohair production. There is no one to sue. You need to either vote out the politicians that put on the charade or have a revolution.

  • Suki||

    +1

  • Jersey Patriot||

    A study commissioned by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce goes even further, estimating that the 250-ton threshold would encompass nearly 200,000 manufacturing facilities, approximately 20,000 farms, and at least 1 million commercial buildings, including a substantial percentage of hospitals, hotels, large restaurants, and even some churches. On average, the Chamber of Commerce study reported, “a building with over 40,000 square feet uses enough hydrocarbons to become a regulated source.”

    Is the statute actually enforced this way? Say a hospital consumes a resource, whose production creates sulfur dioxide gas. Is that hospital counted as a source, or is the producer of that resource counted as the source? If so, the Chamber study is just fear-mongering. The emissions would be regulated at the producer sites, far fewer than the user sites.

    If greenhouse gases are a problem, and I think they are, a carbon tax is the least-bad option here. Cap-and-trade is a corporate welfare mess, rife with opportunities for patronage and corruption. EPA regulation would drown the nation in red tape. The carbon tax is the least-bad option.

  • ||

    It's all a scam. Move along.

  • ||

    Is that hospital counted as a source, or is the producer of that resource counted as the source?

    Oh, we count them both. It's better for Gaia that way.

  • Ratko||

    Pardon me, Mr Wylie, we're from the carbon enforcement task force, we've detected CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere from your head. Your under arrest.

    Is there actually a point to discussing how many will be affected when all we know is they now unconstitutionally have the power and obligation to regulate something as ubiquitous as CO2?

    Well, thank God we know our government is honorable and wise.

    Years ago when a friend of mine was released after serving 15 solid years in prison for two pot seeds I told him he would have been a lot smarter and better off to have just purchased his tax stamp for those seeds.

    We allow them a power, they will abuse it. It is that simple.

  • SkepticalTexan||

    Indirect emissions (e.g., CO2 from coal-fired electricity) are not counted in making this assessment.

    CO2 from onsite natural gas and fuel oil combustion for heating and utilities could easily exceed 250 t/year for large buildings.

    It's not just fear-mongering.

  • ||

    Screw the EPA. What was the carbon footprint of that budget delivery parade from last-week/whenever?

    In any event, if the gov't wants to control some environmental impact, how about they start with themselves?

    "We just cut our carbon footprint by 2% by not producing printed budgets that noone ever reads. Next up is our plan to get all gov't offices to turn off their monitors over nights and weekend. That should give us another 5%, easy." And so on.

    But who am I kidding. That would require the same sort of restraint and responsibility that could produce a balanced budget. We know that's the pipiest of dreams.

  • Ratko||

    The best indicator of true intelligence is the ability to analyse past and present then with that knowledge accurately estimate the probable future.

    When they promised the most ethical and transparent Congress in history, you most likely had the same reaction as when promised as President it will not be business as usual.

    You are a wise man.

  • Brian Defferding||

    The debate is not about whether there is global warming or not, it's what we do about it. And there are market solutions for that, too. We will come to find that oil's limited resources will usher in cleaner air than most strict regulations on cars, the strict regulations that will just make cars more expensive.

  • ||

    The debate is not about whether there is global warming or not, it's what we do about it

    But shouldn't we settle the debate on the former before even considering the latter?

    Too logical? Oh, sorry, I forgot that the Science Is Settled. Despite not being settled. Mmmmmm, consensus.

  • Brian Defferding||

    I suppose so, but at the same time, the whole debate seems all too tied to the idea of sacrificing our liberties or not. Do you agree with that?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Brian Defferding,

    [...] but at the same time, the whole debate seems all too tied to the idea of sacrificing our liberties or not. Do you agree with that?

    Indeed - it has been tied to freedom-stomping so much, the science itself has suffered for it, becoming just a whore for statists.

  • ||

    I disagree.

    The assumption that Human Civ is responsible for climate modification leads directly to restricting liberties.

    Makes it a pretty key issue IMO.

  • Brian Defferding||

    I wholehartedly disagree Wylie. If you see how energy, especially the bigger ozone-offending ones, are tied to government and its regulations/subsidies, along with how local governments handle waste, you will find that free markets can actually help the environment more than any large 10,000+ page federal policy.

  • ||

    ozone-offending ones

    I thought we were talking about climate change, not UV-exposure?

  • ||

    you will find that free markets can actually help the environment more than any large 10,000+ page federal policy.

    I'm not disagreeing with that idea. In fact, its WHY i think liberties are central to the debate. Otherwise, we end up with 10kilopage regs.

  • Ratko||

    Oh my Bog, now it's ozone. You do realise that attempt at scare mongering with nothing more than pure speculation was shot down long ago don't you?

    But since you brought it up, great example. If you can figure that one out then you'll understand why murdering, starving and destroying countless numbers of people over speculation and fraud may make you feel like your sin has been washed away. Oh what a lovely feeling, well, for as long as you can stay blind to reality and what you helped do to others who did you no wrong. Don't get it? How about ethanol, ring any bells? Starvation, riots, deaths, and guess what, what carbonous gas is the major by product of fermentation? You guessed it CARBON DIOXIDE, now lets add in the CO2 from the energy involved in the process and the extra CO2 produced by the extra fuel combusted due to the reduction of MPG resulting from blending ethanol into gasoline. Oh my, we killed and starved a bunch of our fellow man for what turned out to be a considerable increase in CO2 output.

    Is feeling good about oneself over ignorant policies based on wild speculation that serve no beneficial purpose but to callously injure your fellow man, even costing others their lives, really so important? It seems senseless and selfish to me, maybe I'm just all messed up.

  • Tony||

    Teach the controversy!

  • ||

    If we don't keep preaching the controversy, then greenhouse-gassholes will consolidate their claim that The Science is Settled®

  • ||

    You mean, talk about the obvious holes in the theory being advanced ... you know, that science thingy, where everyone is expected to be skeptical and try to disprove theories?

  • Tony||

    No, we should not fall into the same trap laid down by creationists in their lame attempt to show controversy where there is none. To them, the creationism was settled, so any tactics that cast doubt on evolution were permissible to advance their cause. To most of the guys here, the denialism is settled. In both cases the anti-science crowd uses "sciency" rhetoric to advance their agenda.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    No, we should not fall into the same trap laid down by creationists in their lame attempt to show controversy where there is none.

    That's a very lame comparison, Tony.

  • Tony||

    What's interesting is how closely the movements mirror each other.

    Climate change deniers are now somewhere between the "it's a fraud!" and "the science isn't settled--teach the controversy!" stages of the crusade.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    What's interesting is how closely the movements mirror each other.

    I debated Creationists for years, Tony - you have NO idea of what you're talking about.

    Climate change deniers are now somewhere between the "it's a fraud!" and "the science isn't settled--teach the controversy!" stages of the crusade.

    The IPCC blunders, the mega-bucks involved and the East Anglia flim-flam factory notwithstanding, right?

  • Tony||

    Piltdown Man!!!

  • ||

    Piltdown Man!!!

    Exactly. Supposed "scientists" with an agenda fake the data. The only thing more stupid than those who believed in Piltdown Man are those who use him to defend scientists making up data.

  • Chad||

    If you had debated them and disagree with their logic, why do you use it?

    The "blunders" are trivial and do not change anything of substance, and the super-duper-mega-hella-bucks are on the other side, dumbass.

  • Old Mexican||

    The blunders are trivial because YOU say are trivial?

    Thank you, Chad, for clearintg that one up.

    And the money is on the side of the people that have to guns to wrestle it from our hands, Chad - don't try forget that. You can make the effort despite your fruitcakeness...

  • Chad||

    How do they effect the science? Did we learn anything new? Nope. We simply fixed a few errors and clarified a few points, and moved on. The glaciers are still melting, the Amazon is still drying, and the world is as hot as ever.

    Your comment about money is just bat-manure insane, like usual.

  • ||

    The glaciers are still melting

    You mean the ones in the Himalayas?

    Didn't you hear? It was another non-fact placed in the IPCC report, this time based upon some speculation during a phone conversation.

    Your streak of being more stupid day after day continues. Well done!

  • Chad||

    I meant most glaciers on the planet.

    I am very well aware of the mistake in the IPCC report. However, you do not seem to be aware that the fact there was a mistake in the report concerning the melt rate does NOT imply that they are not melting. It just means that they aren't melting THAT fast.

  • ||

    I meant most glaciers on the planet

    [Citation needed]

    Let me guess, because Tony told you so over the phone?

  • Chad||

    www.sciencemag.org
    www.nature.com

    Get back to me when you have learned something.

  • ||

    Chad, you pose, here, as a scientist. But the fact is you're just one of those loony leftist assholes who think you must save the earth. You gloss over the extreme lying and cheating of the warmist nuts and repeat the bullshit that got their balls in the ringer. Give it up dickhead....it's over!

  • ||

    Chad won't be happy until North America is covered by ice a mile thick again.

  • Ratko||

    Interesting, I don't recall creationists using their junk science to do anything other than be mentioned in school text books.

    Tony are you on medication? The majority of what you post is irrational, unrelated, irrelavant, obsessive, incoherent, immature, misinformed, and occassionally just plain creepy.

    If you honestly believe creationists are sneaking around concealing traps for you to fall into then you are seriously paranoid.

  • Tony||

    You're right, science deniers on the subject of climate change are much more dangerous than creationists who merely want to keep students ignorant of biology. Climate science deniers are abetting the holocaust of future generations of humans.

  • ||

    And destroying entire economies will make things all peachy?

  • Zeb||

    I think Brian has it about right. Whether or not CO2 emissions are causing global warming/climate change/whatever (and to claim that it is certainly not happening is just as stupid as claiming that the science is settled), burning less stuff is a damn good thing, other things being equal. There is plenty of pollution from fossil fuels that is undeniably real and harmful.

  • Old Mexican||

    Zeb,

    Agreed, but let's do it in a free-market way by considering that pollution represents an inefficiency in itself, and inefficiencies cost money. If by burning less fuel you save a few bucks, and since any savings go to the bottom line, then finding ways of saving fuels MAKES market sense. One does NOT need an overbearing government to tell us that.

    People like Chad and Tony do not believe in people figuring out this by themselves; instead, tney rely on the notion of a government populated by omniscient sages that *know* exactly what has to be done - any trip to the DMV quickly dispells such absurd notion except for the terminally statist.

  • Tony||

    If the magical market could contend with such future externalities then it would have done so by now. With the incentives currently in place there's no reason to believe that we're just gonna keep burning dirty fuels until they run out, at which point it will be too late to do anything about their effects.

  • Tony||

    there's *every* reason to believe

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    If the magical market could contend with such future externalities then it would have done so by now.

    First, there is NO such thing as an "extrenality". A concept no one can pinpoint is NOT a concept (an externality becoming merely "what I happen not to like"). So you're already begging the question by asserting the above.

    Second, there's nothing magical about the market, except what's in your head. The market is simply all of US making decisions, in the aggregate.

    With the incentives currently in place there's no reason to believe that we're just gonna keep burning dirty fuels until they run out, at which point it will be too late to do anything about their effects.

    Did you read what you wrote?

  • Tony||

    Once again you commit the fallacy of assuming that since something can't be measured precisely then it's value is zero. This is nonsense.

    Of course externalities exist. No transaction takes place in a vacuum. To believe otherwise is incomprehensible to me.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Once again you commit the fallacy of assuming that since something can't be measured precisely then it's value is zero. This is nonsense.

    Your retort is a non sequitur. The objection I posit has NOTHING to do with measuring anything but with CONCEPTUALIZATION. What's an externality? Whatever I happen NOT to like, it ends up being. That's not a concept.

    Of course externalities exist. No transaction takes place in a vacuum.

    Entirely DIFFERENT things. A transaction is nothing more than an exchange of titles. An externality is supposed to be some unaccounted benefit or detriment from a certain act. What is the benefit or detriment cannot be known because it is not an opportunity cost.

  • Tony||

    I think what you're trying to say is that externalities are often not quantifiable but are judged by subjective values. This is often true--one has to agree that education is a positive thing in order to favor subsidizing it (i.e., correcting the market to account for the positive externalities associated with education).

    But the negative costs of fossil fuel energy are not totally unquantifiable and are in fact quite obvious. A Pigovian tax that approximates the negative externality results in more market efficiency than none at all.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    I think what you're trying to say is that externalities are often not quantifiable but are judged by subjective values.

    That's not what I am trying to say. Externalities ARE a matter of subjectivity, which is why "externality" is a non-concept.

    This is often true--one has to agree that education is a positive thing in order to favor subsidizing it

    Well, you are going the wrong way such as it is, since even if a person believes that education is a good thing (i.e. he values it highly) does not mean it justifies subsidizing it.

    [...](i.e.correcting the market to account for the positive externalities associated with education).

    This is yet another mistake - thinking that the lack of subsidies for education means ipso facto a failing of the market. It's like saying Evolution failed because we don't have wings, so we must subsidize the gluing of wings to our arms.

    But the negative costs of fossil fuel energy are not totally unquantifiable[...]

    Not totally, no - if I make it rain gasoline on top of my neighbor's land, and he SUES ME, my cost will be whatever he is willing to settle for. Which is why I don't rain gasoline on top of my neighbor's land.

    Instead, if he uses a car, and I use a car, and my other neighbors use cars, and trucks, and tractors, then any waste that comes from those activities has already been ACCRUED by all of us: I, my neighbors, and their neighbors, since we weighted the benefits of using motor vehicles against the costs. This is something you keep forgetting, because you think people are stupid.

    A Pigovian tax that approximates the negative externality results in more market efficiency than none at all.

    Again, you fail to take into consideration people already accrue for these so-called "costs" when they decide to use fossil fuels and motor vehicles - they already see the benefit in productivity these goods bring compared to the liabilities.

    The reason you favor these arbitrary taxes is because you think people are stupid.

  • Chad||

    So now OM is arguing that Chapter Two of every econ book is wrong. Wow, just WOW.

    How much further into the corner can he sink?

    Btw, I just randomly searched for an "Econ 101 syllabus". First hit was this:

    http://www.unc.edu/~mcmullen/McMullen - Econ 101 Syllabus.pdf

    Looks like they are talking about externalities around the third week of class, and follow it up with a good does of game theory, which some other desperate liberatarian said had "nothing to do with economics" this weekend. It is sad to watch you guys claim that 100-level concepts are myths.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Chad,

    So now OM is arguing that Chapter Two of every econ book is wrong.

    Not just Chapter 2, Chad, if you mean Samuelson's

    How much further into the corner can he sink?

    I have noticed how instead of valid counterarguments, Chad, for something that can be argued from an epistemological standpoint, you simply throw your arms around and make appeals to authority as thus:

    "Btw, I just randomly searched for an "Econ 101 syllabus". First hit was this:

    http://www.unc.edu/~mcmullen/McMullen - Econ 101 Syllabus.pdf"

    Looks like they are talking about externalities around the third week of class, and follow it up with a good does of game theory,

    Blah, blah, blah.

  • ||

    Economics is as much a "science" as
    AGW.

  • SkepticalTexan||

    "Carbon dioxide, however, is a ubiquitous by-product of modern industrial society."

    CO2 is a ubiquitous by-product of ANY society.

    A village blacksmith in 18th century New England could be subject the 250 ton de minimis.

  • ||

    Let's not even get into all the smoked meat produced throughout history.

    Why do ham and sausages hate the environment?

  • Old Mexican||

    Or those greedy charcoal makers.

  • Suki||

    It didn't count until the Corporations began destroying the environment.

  • Old Mexican||

    You mean like the East Dutch India Company?

  • ||

    Depends: Did the EIC count as a legal person?

    *rimshot*

  • Suki||

    No, more like what wylie is joking about. After teh corporazionz became people they started destroying the environment!

  • ||

    Here a video of what "our" next generation really thinks of the present administrations budget and deficits.

    http://www.youtube.com/user/Optoons#p/u/4/Jf4QRs5THA4

  • Xeones||

    CO2 is a ubiquitous by-product of ANY society.

    Not a zombie society, dude.

  • ||

    Rotting flesh doesn't produce CO2?

  • SkepticalTexan||

    I stand corrected.

    But even the EPA doesn't want a zombie society. Extending the concept of the "living Constitution" to the CAA, the EPA's "living legislation" interpretation of the CAA's 250 ton de minimis for air pollutants means 25,000 tons in the case of CO2.

  • ||

    But in a zombie society, wouldn't we have a "living dead" Constitution?

  • ||

    I doubt the zombies' gov't would be any more representative of them than ours is of us.

  • Dello||

    EAT THE RICH...literally!

  • ||

    Uh, you retard, rotting flesh gives off methane, which is a terrible greenhouse gas. Jeebus, why are you such a dipshit? You make Tony look like a real person.

  • The Gobbler||

    We're up to 99 on the retard counter.

    http://www.rwordcounter.org/

  • ||

    The Truth Behind the Global Waming Scam:

    http://bighollywood.breitbart......nflags.jpg

  • Old Mexican||

    Socialism: Thievery by those with no character.

    +1 Good link.

  • Suki||

    He failed the SugarFree HTML class.

  • ||

    Republicans would be wise to brand any CO2-related decision by the EPA as "Obama's tax on air". Then they should hunt down with dogs all Democrats who don't vote to repeal the EPA decision.

  • ||

    The Air Tax. Brought to you by Airheads for Socialism.

  • Old Mexican||

    I like it . . . Sounds catchy. Send the memo!

  • ||

    I guess someone's middle school is out for President's Day.

  • ||

    The short bus doesn't run on President's Day.

  • ||

    And The Man Hole doesn't have that lunch buffet any longer. Yay for us.

  • ||

    But what about The White Swallow?

  • ||

    They kicked him out when the owner found out he was a pathetic troll on the internet and was therefore John Wayne Gacy x 20.

  • A is Awesome||

    Isn't this kind of a 'no duh' article? Seriously, duh!

  • ||

    Wow, does this guy seem a bit self centered or what? I mean really.

    Jess
    www.isp-logging.net.tc

  • ||

    Thanks again for last night's Valentine blow job, Blossom.

  • Kroneborge||

    So now after accepting the political reality that some type of regulation will happen, all the libertarians and conservatives are going to push for a net zero carbon tax right?

  • Jonathan H. Adler||

    I've actually supported a revenue-neutral carbon tax for years.

    JHA

  • Ernie the Bear||

    I would submit, erroneously, that a more accurate title for this article would have been, "The EPA's Carbon Bootprint".

  • juris imprudent||

    +1

  • Almanian||

    I want to know when the EPA's going to deal with the real issue - Manbearpig.

    And I'm eating beans for dinner tonight just for spite.

    If I didn't know better, I'd think you guys cover these subjects just to piss me off and attempt to raise my blood pressure. Well, I fart in your general direction.

  • ||

    No MNG and no Neu Mexican. I guess they have given up.

  • ||

    If they haven't given up yet, they are masochists of the highest order. NTTAWWT.

  • Old Mexican||

    Actually he goes by Neu Mejican.

  • ||

    Actually, they call him MISTER Tibbs!

  • ||

    Bad Sidney Poitier movie references? Really? Jeebus, you suck.

    Why do I have to work today while the rest of you schmucks just fuck around? I could be playing Borderlands right now.

  • ||

    I could be playing Bioshock 2, you know.

  • ||

    You could, but why would you?

    I have to kill Mad Mel tonight and I hate solo vehicle battles. Maybe I'll join a co-operative just to fuck Mel up. Someone else will probably grab most of the good loot, but at least I can aim a turreted machine gun instead of driving.

  • Solanum||

    "Mel is nuts, but at least he knows basic story structure."

    You can easily handle him solo. Wait for Mel to spawn, let yourself get killed and respawn outside the arena, and pick him off with a rocket launcher from the ramp.

  • Suki||

    Jonathan Adler from the March 2010 issue

    Time travel at reason: Awesome!

  • Almanian||

    I knew these guys were up to something

  • Suki||

    But who to watch the watchers?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Either through healthcare reform legislation or this burst of regulatory mission creep, they were bound to get control over my breath.

    From the Church of AGW this monster comes. The only thing more ludicrous than the idea of a global temperature is the idea that man could have any effect on it.

  • Zeb||

    Don't underestimate mankind. We are pretty clever and can get a lot of amazing things done.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    You're right. I totally forgot about chemtrails.

  • Xeones||

    Uh, you retard, rotting flesh gives off methane, which is a terrible greenhouse gas. Jeebus, why are you such a dipshit? You make Tony look like a real person.

    The increase in methane emissions is more than offset by the collapse of all industries other than brain-eating, jerkface, so you can swing on my balls.

  • ||

    Oh yeah? Well fuck you Kyle! And fuck you Kenny!

    Oh, and you are a moron. There would be many fires burning because of the collapse of civilization, thereby un-offsetting (is that a word?) the decrease in industry. So blow me.

  • ||

    Catfight! Catfight!

  • Sam Grove||

    What is the government's CO2 footprint?

  • Suki||

    CO2 footprints with good intentions don't gain bad karma.

  • Hacha Cha||

    if these assholes want to reduce their carbon footprint they can start by not breathing anymore.

  • Xeones||

    Oh, and you are a moron. There would be many fires burning because of the collapse of civilization, thereby un-offsetting (is that a word?) the decrease in industry. So blow me.

    Fires eventually go out, cockfag.

  • ||

    Not the one you have burning in your heart for Ashlee Simpson.

  • juris imprudent||

    I really shudder to contemplate the 'make-up sex' you two are going to have.

  • The Gobbler||

    Drilling a $2.36 Trillion Hole in the GDP:

    A new report suggests that the moratorium on offshore drilling could cost the U.S. economy $2.36 trillion dollars, and force energy prices up by 17 percent, through 2029.

    http://corner.nationalreview.c.....E2NzhiNjY=

  • Rich||

    The law defines a “major” source as a facility that has the potential to emit 250 tons per year of a regulated pollutant

    So, the EPA gets to regulate *nuclear weapons*?

  • RichN||

    Somebody should bring suit that if the EPA is not going to regulate the most concentrated (water vapor) greenhouse gas then it shouldn't regulate the least of them.

  • ||

    Weak article... it would be more convincing if there was some other, constructive, alternative proposed. The "nyah, nyah,nyah I'm not hearing you" approach to denying the scientific consensus on climate change is lame. I will give Ronald Bailey some credit, at least he attempts to offer a rational opinion on this issue.

  • ||

    China has refused to verify emissions in their manufacturing, so now our president wants to limit ours, knowing that huge South American discoveries of oil will be sent with the carbon footprints of ships and their polluted water trail to China, for manufacturing consumer goods, hiding their emissions, so they can then be shipped into our country with a carbon footprint and polluted water trail. Drugs and violence grow on our borders as poverty grows, from lack of manufacturing jobs. It is said that our economy is dependent on China's well being to recover, because of American markets there, or is it dependent on their buying our treasury notes? Either way what should be analyzed, is not wall street and foreign banks interest, but American jobs created by a strong manufacturing economy of consumer goods in our country. To address ballast water dumping of bacterial pathogens and virus with a national program on a quick time line would curtail the destruction of our countries environment, protect world health and slow the importation of goods as China would have to retrofit their shipping industry, which is the largest in the world. The European Union seems to be aggressively pursuing green shipping, this would help supply oil should, this president decide to keep a campaign promise of change for America to go green. It is interesting that this administration and the commander and chiefs, rhetoric about going green have not or will not addressed this issue other than the Coast Guard twenty plus year plan, despite the recent talk again of international dumping of toxic waste in the worlds oceans. They are so against addressing ballast water that even with our Great Lakes being in peril from invasion of Asian carp, knowing of all the previous documentation that fish, human disease and invasive are moved by this venue, they have now only committed to study the problem in the Illinois Sanitary canal. The chance that the barge operators in Illinois will continue normal procedures while they study ballast water is a joke. They will make sure that the waters are clean till they are not checked anymore, then it will be business as usual,and they will then try and show ballast water as not being problematic, it is the economic side of human nature.

  • ||

    The only rational, and preservative action in response to the EPA's declared intention to regulate CO2 as a pollutant is to completely de-fund the agency.
    As a matter of fact, virtually ALL of the cabinet level agencies not specified in the Constitution should be reviewed for the potential to de-fund and disband them. Disbanding could be performed peacefully, but I prefer the way the Visigoths did it; slaughter every bureaucrat found in the building.
    EPA? HEW? FERC? What part of creeping progressive uber-statism don't you get?

  • ||

    Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott takes legal action against the EPA challenging greenhouse gas regulation. URLs to original statements and documents follow.

    http://governor.state.tx.us/video/interviews/14259/

    http://governor.state.tx.us/fi....._Cause.pdf

    http://governor.state.tx.us/news/press-release/14253/

  • Alex||

    Since the lion's share of greenhouse gases is water vapour, by the EPA's logic, they can regulate that too.

  • ||

    I concur with "B Dubya" that the solution to the latest EPA absurdities is to DEFUND this and other useless and destructive agencies. But in order to do this we must elect conservative representatives who believe in our Constitution and ENFORCE IT.

  • ||

    AMEN!

  • Al Gore's court||

    A majority of the justices actually believed Al Gore's anti-scientific spittle about the argument being over.

    Probably the same phalanx of five who raped the Constitution (and property rights) with the Kelo decision.

    We could be doomed.

  • ||

    If the Justices made their ruling using "scientific" data which they presumed to be genuine but which later turns out to be the result of fraud and deception, I would think that would invalidate the ruling. There must be a way to challenge this - and given the wide scope of this new power given the EPA, pretty much anyone should have standing to file a suit.

  • Phil Jones goes postal||

    Phil Jones the top CRU climate data guy at East Anglia - on leave for investigation of possible criminal activity - now says no significant warming in the last 15 years.

    Tick tock tick tock.

    So how long do we have to wait before the "but, but, buts..." start triggering uncontrollable laughter from all?

    Where is the warming!

    Better start rubbing two "consensus" sticks together guys.

  • ||

    Phil Jones, please tell your followers, to get their cups, fill with kool aid, lay down, stop talking and posting, go to sleep. Every generation seems to have a false religion for gullible people to follow. Jim Jones had his, and now you have yours. Man made global warming doesn't exist, never has, and never will.

  • RichN||

    "To say that a bad government must be established for fear of anarchy is really saying that we should kill ourselves for fear of dying." – Richard Henry Lee

  • NoName||

    Hey Tony and Chad...

    Have you been paying attention to the news at all lately? AGW as a "fact" has fallen apart. First the CRU EMails revealed the problems with the review process. Then all the lies and exaggerations by the IPCC started coming out. Now Phil Jones has even admitted publicly that there has been no warming since 1995 and that there wasn't a consensus about the Medieval Warming Period (and possibly about AGW at all).

    It's all falling apart, the religion of global warming, oh sorry "climate change" is unraveling. The facts weren't there, and never have been to back up the claims or that fake "consensus".

    It may be hard to watch and easy to ignore while the main stream press puts a nice spin on things, but people can find out the truth without the MSM now.

    http://blogs.the-american-inte.....net-earth/

  • Tony||

    You're right. I haven't been up with the news lately. I did some research on the latest news... and... I take it all back. I was wrong. AGW is a lie.

    Wow that really hurts to say...

  • ||

    How does the revelation of the numerous instances of fraud on all levels of the Global Warming industry affect the "endangerment finding"? If the basic data and science which underpinned this "scientific" theory (which coincidentally justifies Marxist-style control of the economy) are incomplete, inaccurate or outright fraudulent, then what does that say for the theory itself?

  • ||

    Quote of the week: Earthquakes might be viewed as acts of God, but their lethality is often a function of masonry.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35.....gton_post/

  • new39||

    39 health network
    http://www.new39.net

  • abercrombie milano||

    My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I'm sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won't get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there's more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp. I'm not concerned that Mr. Crumb will go to hell or anything crazy like that! It's just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it straight...the Bible's books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious beliefs as if God made them with clothes on...the Bible's books were written by people with very different mindsets...in order to really get the Books of the Bible, you have to cultivate such a mindset, it's literally a labyrinth, that's no joke.

  • nfl jerseys||

    nrfr

  • CHEAPWOMEN UGG BOOTS||

    Most of the negotiation auction Uggs Australia Outlet boots you like. The alarming and equally bad advice and the facts do not really abuse this brand. Which is used as Ugg Boots On Sale boots are your friends in the winter.

  • CHEAPWOMEN UGG BOOTS||

    gives Ugg Boots Online Store boots access most alarming affection air using the price of power.Ugg Boots Outlet Apparently the name is always used cast name. ?

  • CHEAPWOMEN UGG BOOTS||

    for you. because to achieve simple Sheepskin Ugg Boots can be the figure par excellence of architecture today. Not really fits photos as they are. Ugg Boots Online Store chestnut can entertain your power needs. among the best atom important is the achievement that

  • CHEAPWOMEN UGG BOOTS||

    There are all kinds of Ugg Sheepskin Boots accept that abound in the market. It complicated the implementation of the agencies that fails that a margin will apparently be the best. But we are in a range to raise awareness of the Ugg Sheepskin Boots Bailey button

  • ugg boots||

    It complicated the implementation of the agencies that fails that a margin will apparently be the best.

  • australian college of physical||

    Does chemistry have to do with something other than the physical properties of chemicals?

  • قبلة الوداع||

    thank u

  • mbt shoes clearance||

    good

  • ||

    I would like to comment to show my appreciation for your post as it is very challenging to do, and many bloggers do not get appreciation they deserve. www.apple.com/ipod/start

  • fat loss||

    Very nice article. I look forward to reading a lot more from you. also I have a blog about fat loss and burning fat, hope that we can exchange.

  • دردشه عراقية||

    Thanks

  • رش مبيدات||

    but there are checks to their power, like anti-fraud laws and competition from other companies that can subtly (or non-subtly) point out the problems with the competition.شركة تنظيف شقق بالرياض
    And there are non-market competitors to the market - things like religion, or opinion journalism (which isn't really a profit-making business these days, is it?).

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement