The EPA recently made a finding that carbon dioxide is a “pollutant that endangers the public’s health and welfare.” ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!
Someon please explain to me how carbon dioxide, you know, the gas that comes out of every human’s mouth and nose every time they exhale, has suddenly become a danger to our health and welfare!
Someone please explain to me how carbon dioxide, that same gas that every plant on earth needs to live and grow and to produce the oxygen that we breath, has suddenly became a danger to our health and welfare!
The EPA might as well call oxygen a dangerous pollutant because I can’t exhale that dangerous pollutant carbon dioxide without first breathing in oxygen.
Obviously, this whole finding is a step towards the Obama administration using the Clean Air Act (which already regulates the real pollutants that come out of our exhaust pipes) to regulate carbon emissions in the name of catastrophic, man-made global warming.
When was the last time a person got sick from global warming? Maybe the EPA is assuming that global warming is causing the oceans to rise and that we’ll all drown in the ocean. I guess that could be bad for my health; maybe water is a dangerous pollutant. I mean carbon dioxide has two oxygen molecules and water has one oxygen molecule. In fact, the oxygen we breath is two oxygen molecules just like carbon dioxide. None of the articles reporting on this said why the EPA found carbon dioxide to be a dangerous pollutant, only that they did.
Honestly, when is the global warming madness going to end?!?!?!?!?!!?
Besides, more and more scientists are agreeing that climate change as Al Gore is feeding it to you is a load of crap. See here and here.
I felt like I should add this exchange on cap and trade between Dave Camp (R-MI) and Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Dr. Douglas Elmendorf.
REP CAMP: Would a climate change policy that places a price on carbon—-
would that mean higher energy prices across the entire economy?
CBO DIRECTOR ELMENDORF: Yes. I don’t know what you mean by the short run,
but at any point in which we are putting a price on carbon emissions, that
would be passed through to the cost that consumers face on energy products
but also all other products that are made using fossil fuels.
REP CAMP: Thank you. Are there any goods and services that would not rise
in price in response to that policy?
CBO DIRECTOR ELMENDORF: I don’t know if there are any good that use no
energy in their production. It seems to me unlikely.
REP CAMP: When CBO estimates the impact of imposing say a cap-and-tax
system on the economy, isn’t it true that when CBO scores those proposals,
that it assumes the increases on energy taxes act as a drag on the economy
and thereby reduce other income and payroll receipts?
CBO DIRECTOR ELMENDORF: Yes. An indirect tax-sales taxes, all sorts of
other indirect taxes- and the carbon tax- so the price of cap-and-trade
allowances would fit in that category. That kind of revenue would then
reduce the income that people have and the taxes they pay to the government.
Enough said.
Last 3 posts by Taylor
- Obama's Second Act - Very Very Scary - July 16th, 2010
- No Politics in the Goldman Sachs Enforcement Action? - April 20th, 2010
- Moral Relativity Reigns...except - April 9th, 2010
Actually water has 2 hydrogen molecules and only one oxygen molecule.
When are they just going to come out and say that human beings should be gotten rid of for the earth’s sake? Apparently we’re the worst thing to ever move on this planet.
There was a climate change lunatic in England that said they needed to cut their population in half.
This kind of scientific study always brings to mind the ‘dangers of dihydrogen oxide’ http://www.dhmo.org/facts.
You can look at all kinds of data and spin it to a political purpose when it has no basis in reality.