• Ruth Taylor

    Dear Becky,

    No offense, but you don’t understand this issue very well.

    First, the “backdoor attempt” reference doesn’t have anything to do with this issue being “all over the news.” Senator Isakson is referring to something else with his “backdoor attempt” comment.

    Here is the deal: Obama tried to get his Cap & Trade bill through the Congress, and the Senate will not put the bill through (more and more Democrats also oppose the bill). Because Congress would not put his bill through, Obama has chosen (he announced this publicly) to “go through the back door” and try to implement various parts of the (Cap & Trade) bill through his agencies (because he has control over his agencies since its members are appointed by him – rather than elected).

    The EPA is only authorized to regulate greenhouse gasses at all because of a fairly new Supreme Court ruling – and that ruling was based on science which has since been very seriously questioned (many people would say it is discredited). I believe the Supreme Court will reverse that ruling fairly soon.

    So, whether you agree with Obama or disagree with him – he is definitely going thought the back door – just as the Senator says. Obama and his supporters admit this themselves.

    Second, you said, “Even if we take global warming out of the equation, these emissions damage the health of human beings, especially those living near facilities such as coal burning power plants.” Again, I think you are confused. Green House gasses do not damage health in any way. Even the proponents of regulating greenhouse gasses do not say that greenhouse gasses damage anyone’s health. If you take greenhouse gasses “out of the equation,” there are no health issues at all concerning greenhouse gasses. In fact, controlling greenhouse gasses takes money away from controlling the very things you are concerned about – such as keeping our air and water clean.

    If you will research these issues you will see what I’m talking about. Please don’t write your senator urging him to do things that you are misinformed about. That hurts all of us.


  • Jean Mccarthy

    Becky -

    It looks like Ruth is NOT in favor of letting the EPA regulate C02, but I agree with you and I WANT the EPA to regulate it. Ruth is correct about her two main points, however. The “backdoor” comment that S.Isakson madewas not referring to what you thought it was, and also C02 does not hurt anyone’s health if you take global warming out of the picture.

    I know you meant well with your letter, but maybe it would be good for you to inform yourself better about these things before you blog. As John Kennedy said, “The best advocate is an informed advocate,” and we who do believe in Cap & Trade need to have our members know what is going on -so that we don’t look bad to the other side.

    - Jean

  • M. H.

    The EPA gained the right to regulate Greenhouse Gas in the Supreme Court ruling of 2007, in a 5-4 decision, Massachusetts et al. v. EPA et al.

    The Supreme Court based its decision on scientific conclusions that were established in an IPCC report which said that Greenhouse Gases had caused, and would continue to cause, such natural disasters as tornadoes and rising seas.

    In the last few months it has come out that those IPCC Report conclusions (about Greenhouse Gas having caused natural disasters like tornadoes and rising seas etc.) were incorrect. The head of the IPCC has apologized for the inaccuracies. This undercuts the Supreme Court decision.

    I’m sure the Supreme Court will be forced to withdraw its permission for the EPA to regulate Greenhouse Gas – since the science upon which it was based has been discredited.

    • Robert

      M. H. – I have been reading about this that you are talking about. I used to believe global warming had caused many natural disasters and last week I found out the whole idea had been faked by the UN commission in order to scare people. I feel really betrayed.

      This supreme court decision will definitely be changed, and the EPA will no longer be able to regulate Co2 even if it wants to. Plus this EPA regulation will hurt our economy very much.

  • http://ecopolitology.org/author/dave/ Dave Levitan

    First of all, the science has not been remotely discredited, the IPCC mistakes were singular errors amidst an incredible mass of citations and data. There is literally NO change in scientific consensus as a result. The Supreme Court will not reverse their ruling, and have no reason to even consider doing so.

    Second, to say that greenhouse gases have no negative health effects is ridiculous. First of all, take something like nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas — breathe that in and you will get high, until you suffocate. Fun. Also, there is ample evidence of widespread health effects of all greenhouse gases in the sense that their presence in the atmosphere will cause increased drought, rising sea levels, etc. These things DO endanger health, even though simply standing next to a pipe emitting carbon dioxide won’t really do much to you on a short time scale.

    Finally, the EPA “backdoor” attempt to regulate won’t even affect all the same parts of greenhouse gas emissions that various proposed legislation would. It is primarily meant to regulate large new sources of emissions, which will basically require new factories and power plants to be more energy efficient and run cleaner.

    • Justin

      No!! no discredit at all. They just change things, forget things, site things that aren’t true and known to be untrue. One of the leaders of the “science” (phi jones) didn’t just admit that there’s been no significant warming since 1995. 20 years of MIT studies haven’t shown that greenhouse trapping is insignificant, either, right? OH, how bout this one: If we stropped everything–eveyrhting went Fred Flinstone– for 30 years, in the event that man-made global warming was proven, we we not be able to avert a .6 degree increase in 100 years… source: MIT

      It’s a conjured up crisis for power. I’m all for stewardship and care of the Planet, but come one.

  • Zach

    Great commentary, Becky!

    Thanks for the info on the Senators, too!

    Good points concisely made. If people were interested in really evaluating the truth of the points, they would find out quickly that they were straight on.