Obama’s EPA to Bypass Congress, Regulate CO2 Without a Vote

epaco2-180Deliberately timed to coincide with the start of the United Nations’ climate conference in Copenhagen, the Environmental Protection Agency on Monday declared that carbon dioxide, a naturally occurring gas that’s essential to life on Earth, poses a threat to human health and welfare. This determination clears the way for the federal government to begin restricting energy production and restructuring the entire American economy.

 

The EPA cited a 2007 Supreme Court ruling declaring that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act, but the science upon which that ruling was based has now been called into question when emails and internal documents between the UN’s leading climate change scientists were leaked to the public. Contained with in the files was evidence of suppression, manipulation and destruction of climate data. The emails revealed that the entire historical climate record that is the basis for all determinations of climate change is based on inaccurate data and has been manipulated to match a political and economic agenda.

 

If the EPA acts unilaterally to restrict carbon dioxide emissions, the impact on the economy could be even worse than a cap and trade law enacted by Congress. The reasons for this move by the Obama Administration’s EPA appear to be two-fold: First, to establish authority for President Obama to make enforceable agreements at the UN’s climate conference even in lieu of a treaty or Congressional approval; and Second to give the administration leverage to coerce the Senate into enacting a cap and trade law just to lessen the economic damage that could be wrought by the EPA’s heavy-handed restrictions of CO2.

 

At this moment, our national economy is under threat by carbon regulation schemes on three fronts: The Copenhagen conference designed to create a world carbon regulatory authority which could undermine our sovereignty; The cap and trade bill that’s been passed by the House of Representatives and now awaits Senate approval; and the Obama Administration’s decision that it can regulate carbon dioxide via the EPA even without approval by Congress.

 

For a preview of what this could mean to American families, one can look to Germany, where due to restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions, electricity costs three-times more than in the US and gasoline is now $8.00 per gallon.

 

You must make your voice heard loud and clear right now. This is no longer a far-away possibility. It’s happening as you read this. Time’s up.

 

Take Action: If you don’t think it’s a good idea to dramatically slash domestic energy production at a cost of trillions of dollars and untold American jobs over the politics of a discredited climate scare, pick up your phone and call the White House right now. Tell the Obama Administration you won’t stand for this unparalleled fleecing of the American public. Call (202) 456-1111 to be heard today.

 

Visit NoCapAndTrade.com for more ways to take action.

27 Responses to Obama’s EPA to Bypass Congress, Regulate CO2 Without a Vote

  1. Rob N. Hood December 8, 2009 at 4:44 pm #

    Bush pushed us into two senseless wars that still haven’t ended, and many other things. I guess it’s Obama’s turn to do something he wants to do. It was the Bush administration that made the US presidency into a position not unlike that of a King. Everything has a consequence I guess.

    • Mikey S December 9, 2009 at 6:09 pm #

      That has got to be one of the stupid reasons I have ever heard. Since Bush was a village idiot and performed as a drunker sailor on the job then it’s Obama’s turn to do the same. Since Bush flushed the toilet on the USA and we’re circling the drain, Your moral equivalency is saying thats its OK for OBAMA to flush again, and again, and again.

      What type of moron are you…..

      • Rob N. Hood December 10, 2009 at 9:20 am #

        It’s valid you simpleton. Bush gained powers a US President shouldn’t have. And now Obama makes some use of them. Unfortuante but natural. Your comment reveals your simplistic mentality. I didn’t say it was ok, did I? Nope. I just said it was his perogative. I don’t like any President having those kindof powers, no true American would. Is it Bush/Cheney’s fault? Well, yes, I’m sorry to have to say it but, Duh!

  2. Torrie December 8, 2009 at 5:10 pm #

    Once again……REVOLUTION!!!

  3. sean December 8, 2009 at 5:33 pm #

    GLOBAL WARMING.,,,BIGGEST SCAM IN HISTORY!! LOTS OF GULLABLE PEOPLE OUT THERE!!! LOL,LOL

  4. BamBam December 8, 2009 at 6:33 pm #

    Rob N. Hood

    What the hell does this have to do with Bush? Wake up this is the real world not your past fantasies.

  5. Paul Wenum December 8, 2009 at 9:36 pm #

    Rob, from all your “hot air” that you spout your fine by the EPA and the tax you will have to pay to Obama will be enormous!!!

  6. Rob N. Hood December 9, 2009 at 8:55 am #

    What does it have to do with Bush? I explained it VERY well.

    You people need to realize this is NOT a Liberal thing. It is a global elitist thing. Do your homework- you are not helping anybody, or yourselves, by just blaming the Liberals. Corporate Libertarianism has been working on this process for decades. It is the natural end-game to unregulated capitalism. No nations, just workers (slaves) and the rich elite. Wake up.

  7. Rob N. Hood December 9, 2009 at 10:56 am #

    No worries- business as usual…

    By Erika Bolstad | McClatchy Newspapers
    WASHINGTON — The Interior Department today gave the go-ahead for Shell Oil to begin drilling three exploratory wells in the Chukchi Sea, a move that opens the door for production in a new region of the Arctic.

    “This is progress,” said Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, the top Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. “Today’s announcement from the MMS is an encouraging sign that Alaska’s oil and natural gas resources can continue to play a major role in America’s energy security.”

  8. paul wenum December 10, 2009 at 12:15 am #

    Robby Boy, and yes I said “Robby Boy.” Wait until Cap N Trade and the left wing/Socialists gets their way. You think times are tough now with your two jobs? Take away one, if not both Robby Boy!! You seem to live in a world that does not exist. Have you ever, ever been in the trenches and dealt with reality other than what you read? If you are symbolic of the next generation, God help us! I think I may retire to my cabin if that is the case.

  9. Rob N. Hood December 10, 2009 at 9:27 am #

    Funny, and yet alarming, that you automatically equate CaT with socialism. That is such an specious and infantile manner of thinking that I cannot find the right words to respond. Talk about one thing not having to do with another. And the new oil exploration in the Arctic is some kind of Socialism too? (Not, just making a point that Obama is anythng but a Socialist- he’s proven himself to be a well-groomed global elitist- so was Bush, but he was just not as well-groomed, you might say, to put his lack of intelligence politely) Sheesh Paul. Get some sleep AND and new hobby.

  10. Rob N. Hood December 10, 2009 at 10:23 am #

    How about right-wing socialists? Nice twist, huh? Could just as valid as your paranoid fantisies of socialism beting the same or always ending up communism.

    “Billionaire brothers David and Charles Koch are the wealthiest, and perhaps most effective, opponents of President Obama’s progressive agenda. They have been looming in the background of every major domestic policy dispute this year. Ranked as the 9th richest men in America, the Koch brothers sit at the helm of Koch Industries, a massive privately owned conglomerate of manufacturing, oil, gas, and timber interests. They are best known for their wealth, as well as for their contributions to the arts, cancer research, and the Smithsonian Institute. But David and Charles are also responsible for a vicious attack campaign aimed directly at obstructing and killing progressive reform.”

    And then there’s this guy, whom I think you’ve heard of, you know the guy that owns Fox?

    Shortly after News Corp. (a Murdoch co.) signed a new deal with Saudi Prince Al-Walid bin Talal for a stake in the prince’s media group, Rotana, Fox News and other Murdoch media arms began working diligently to discredit any attempt to take climate talks seriously at Copenhagen.

    Murdoch’s connection to Al-Walid dates back far longer than the new media deal, but the two have not always seen things the same way. Prince Al-Walid happens to own a 5.7% share in News Corp. and has previously claimed responsibility in altering media coverage on Fox to curb anti-Islam sentiments. However, in 2001, Fox analysts heavily criticized Prince Al-Walid and described him as “a bad guy” for comments he made suggesting the U.S. policy in the Middle East may have helped precipitate the 9/11 attacks. Fox’s Bill Sammon went on to criticize the $10 million Al-Walid attempted to donate for 9/11 disaster relief as “blood money” that Rudy Giuliani rightfully spurned.

    Eight years later, that purveyor of “blood money” owns a stake in the company besides hailing from the biggest oil-producing nation in the world. Rather than continue the old attacks against Prince Al-Walid, Fox and the rest of News Corp. diverted its attention toward heating up the scandal on its self-created story of “Climate-gate.” Fox successfully runs the story despite glaring lapses in fact, and now the competition feels the need to cover the story, as well.

    Of course, the Copenhagen talks began just recently and Murdoch has had an eye on acquiring a stake in Rotana for at least several months. Still, once Fox goes to the tack of comparing environmentalism to Marxism, it belies a clear commitment to fear mongering one could hardly expect regarding a cause with a goal of preserving the planet. When Prince Al-Walid and his oil-dependent nation needs to discredit talks that may diminish their myopically planned economy, though, Rupert Murdoch readily prepares to preserve the prince’s status quo.

    • RKR December 13, 2009 at 9:43 am #

      Rob, after reading this post (and all your other post) you call yourself intelligent? Please put me in the same “simplistic mentality” catagory as you did that other guy, you know Mikey S the “simpleton”. I do NOT want to be in your intelligent group……

  11. paul wenum December 10, 2009 at 11:05 pm #

    You watch too much TV and BS movies. I cannot believe what I read that comes out of that orifice that you call a mouth. What have you been ingesting?

  12. Rob N. Hood December 14, 2009 at 10:51 am #

    You guys can’t handle the truth. You like your own private realities- you know what it means when you cannot recognize or deal with reality don’t you? They call that insanity.

  13. James Cameron December 14, 2009 at 11:08 am #

    I think that CO2 from oil, extracted from the ground at great effort and combusted in cars and planes isn’t “naturally occuring”…

    • Rob N. Hood December 15, 2009 at 12:41 pm #

      Bam ! A voice of sanity in the sea of inanity. Just wish I would have thought of it. Problem is it is too obvious and a given to those who use their brains to an extent beyond two or three cells knocking into each other. Thanks James. Notice that your post was ignored… As my good friend and adversary would say- Enuf said!

      • Dan McGrath December 15, 2009 at 12:47 pm #

        Not relevant. Whether the amount in the air is “normal” (by the way it changes all the time, so what is “normal?”) doesn’t matter. CO2 doesn’t contribute to the greenhouse effect in any significant way. We could double the man-produced CO2 in the air and still see no ill effects.

      • Edwin December 16, 2009 at 1:41 pm #

        If you are burning fozzle fuel then the source of carbon was at one time “natural occuring”, different era, but nevertheless was once part of the food chain. It was not as if life did not flourish back then.

        • Dan McGrath December 16, 2009 at 3:42 pm #

          Fozzle fuel! Love it. I think that’s what the Muppets’ bus ran on.

  14. paul wenum December 14, 2009 at 11:03 pm #

    Reality is reality, deal with it.

  15. Rob N. Hood December 15, 2009 at 9:19 am #

    It’s YOUR reality. You can have it too. Keep it in some dark place, away from sunlight.

  16. Paul Wenum December 15, 2009 at 9:34 pm #

    I did and in the dark with C02 is turned to mold.

  17. scott bowlan December 16, 2009 at 9:35 pm #

    global warming is a huge scam

    massive amounts of money are on the line.

    the companies selling carbon credits will make billions.

    all goer is behind the scam and all goer has one man behind him running the scam.

    there is no global warming.

    its a perfect business set up were the gov will be able to control every last person on the planet.

    its all a scam.

    mores strong is the man backing all goer

  18. Jeff December 17, 2009 at 2:27 pm #

    so if carbon dioxide is now a “pollutant” does this mean if i breathe less i can sell off my excess carbon credits?

    • Dan McGrath December 17, 2009 at 2:55 pm #

      Breathing less sounds like a challenge, but maybe you can capture and sequester some of your exhalations. Everytime you exhale, inflate a balloon. Just don’t pop ‘em! You’ll save the world and make some loot to boot!

  19. paul wenum December 21, 2009 at 1:03 am #

    I like that Dan. I know a few attorneys for a patent/trade mark etc. “Nothing ventured, nothing gained.” Thanks Dan, for putting it in it’s proper perspective.

Leave a Reply

A project of Minnesota Majority