EPA chief finds a way to further delay taking action on emissions
As TalkingPointsMemo put it, "no Bush Administration official, current or former, can hold a candle to EPA chief Stephen Johnson when it comes to chutzpah." Why would TPM say something like this? Well, do you remember the Supreme Court's decision that the EPA would, indeed, need to regulate vehicle greenhouse-gas emissions? It happened exactly one year ago today. Since that time, the EPA has found ways to slow down the process and Johnson has now come up with an unhelpful scheme to delay any action. Seriously delay.WardsAuto reports that by opening up the decision to public comments, Johnson "could delay regulation until as late as 2009." Two years to take action on cleaner air? That's a Bush Administration official for ya. U.S. Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), who's no fan of regulating automakers, said, "I recognize that the current Clean Air Act may not be the best mechanism for regulating greenhouse gases. But it is puzzling and disappointing that the Bush Admin. hasn't offered an alternative or joined the effort to design and enact comprehensive climate-change legislation." When the Dingellsaurus is on your case for not taking action on climate change, you're a rare breed.
[Source: WardsAuto, TalkingPointsMemo]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Nathaniel Sears 9:17PM (4/02/2008)
and people wonder why i dont want 8 more years of the same old same old
Reply
Ryan Dunbar 10:11PM (4/02/2008)
Something tells me, there is more to global warming than just CO2 emissions. The heat we generate just doesn't vanish into the air. It has a small cumulative effect that builds over time (1/E2)M=E2M. Burning 1 trillion gallons of oil, coal, nuclear, wood and many other things over the last 1000 years, has to change the distribution of energy on the planet. A car (take your pick, any non-renewable electric plant) dumps vast amounts of heat into the air, multiply this by the number of cars over the last 100 years, and you get a significant change in distribution of energy to the North and South Pole.
Prior to that, no other species had the capability to add vast amounts of energy to the planet, they could only get their energy from the Sun (food chain). The Glaciers might be melting in some ways from the CO2, but also the cumulative energy imbalance we are creating. Maybe this is a crazy idea, but it should be something scientist should look at, before putting the blame on CO2.
Reply
armmat 12:28AM (4/03/2008)
Come on Ryan:
You know the world hasn't been around for more than a few thousand years and dinasours are all made up....the people who talk to God on a daily basis told us this! There's no such thing as global warming, or ice caps melting, etc...it's all in everyone's heads.
Reply
MarkR 8:57AM (4/03/2008)
As a Republican, I am embarrassed for my party regarding this issue. IT has always been my experience with the local,state or fed. government that it is the Democrats that cause the bureaucratic red tape that slows down progress. To stoop to that level is almost as embarrassing as telling someone that when you exited a plane in Bosnia you were under sniper fire, when in fact the cameras show it was just a 8 yr old with a teddy bear and a crayon picture.
Reply
rgseidl 12:04PM (4/03/2008)
The Bush administration is running out the clock and so is everyone else. No major initiative ever gets passed in the last year of an administration.
Reply
KarenRei 12:23PM (4/03/2008)
MarkR: As a Democrat, while I am embarrassed for the Republicans for denying and downplaying GW, I'm also embarrassed for my fellow Dems for believing in peak oil conspiracies and for going too far in the other direction on GW and acting like there's not just a near consensus on anthropogenic GW (which there is), but also one on its effects on hurricanes (which there isn't), or that GW means that in a couple decades, most of Florida will be underwater (not even close).
What is so hard for people to accept about listening to the science on a given issue, whether you like what it says or not? This disdain for science is not confined to a single party. I see the radical forms more often from Republicans (complete denial of GW, creationism, etc) but the Dems have more than their fair share as well.
Reply
Kevin Nugent 9:12PM (4/03/2008)
Well what do you expect , its the bush administration
Reply