All I Need Is The Air That I Breathe

On December 7, the EPA dramatically usurped Congressional authority and declared carbon dioxide to be a dangerous pollutant. A gas that allows plant life to grow on this planet, is what we exhale when we simply breathe, and is one of the four main components of our atmosphere is now officially “dangerous”.

So President Obama got Lisa Jackson, his EPA head (or should that be “Czarina”?) to administrate her way into history by claiming power for her agency that heretofore has been reserved by the Constitution for the Senate and the House of Representatives. While she clearly would have preferred Congress to handle this, that august body very properly declined to pursue the Waxman-Markey bill, which would have done untold damage to our struggling economy and to the careers of all the Congressmen who voted for it.

“Legislation is so important because it will combine the most efficient, most economy-wide, least costly, least disruptive way to deal with carbon dioxide pollution… [W]e get further faster without top-down regulation.”

But the legislation didn’t appear, and so with the tacit approval of the President and most members of Congress, she started the ball rolling all by herself. This administration found an unorthodox and possibly illegal way to accomplish one of its goals, and aggressively pursued it.

What’s next?

Bridge Over Troubled Water

The Waxman-Markey bill would have disastrous consequences for the entire nation. But it is a battle the Senate can’t win, at least this year. So the Senate has offered up a smaller power grab which would, of course, have more far-reaching consequences than a first glance might disclose. The Clean Water Restoration Act (S 787) would increase regulations of the nations waterways, moving the goal posts and re-defining “waterways” by dropping the modifier “navigable”, which would instantly and dramatically expand regulation of waterways by the EPA. Sen. John Barrasso put it this way:

“Right now, the law says that the Environmental Protection Agency is in charge of all navigable water. Well, this bill removes the word ‘navigable,’ so for ranchers and farmers who have mud puddles, prairie potholes — anything from snow melting on their land — all of that water will now come under the regulation of the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency.”

The Heritage Foundation calls the act “troubled waters for property owners.”

[T]he CWRA seeks to… make the statute more expansive than ever. In fact, it would turn the Clean Water Act into what some analysts believe to be the most dangerous federal intrusion on private property rights in existence. First, it seeks to remove the limitation that the statute only apply to navigable waters and apply it to all waters of the United States. Then it seeks to broadly define such waters as not just “all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, the territorial seas, and all interstate and intrastate waters and their tributaries, including lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams),” but also “mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, natural ponds….” Yes, prairie potholes. Note also that the CWRA makes clear that intrastate as well as interstate waters are the purview of the feds.

The CWRA is an invitation for federal regulators (or environmental organizations filing lawsuits) to shut down any use of land that they don’t like so long as there is a little water somewhere in the vicinity. If the past is any guide, this law will be used to stop a tremendous amount of economic activity. Though not as far-reaching as Waxman Markey, the CWRA would be a serious blow to the rural economy, not to mention private property rights. [Emphasis mine]

Let’s see. Is there anything else we the people have that can be taken away?

This Land Is Your Land, This Land Is My Land

Having taken over the air that we breathe and the all the water in and around America, what else could this President want on his way to gaining total power over all U. S. citizens? Well, your private property, of course. No good socialist dictator can long allow his subjects to own land.

And you know what? He just might be able to do it.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2005 Kelo decision opened the door for local jurisdictions to abridge citizens’ property rights. And if local jurisdictions can do it, then ultimately, so can state and federal jurisdictions.

As Carol Saviak wrote back just after the decision was rendered:

America is outraged because we understand the implication of the Kelo opinion: If government has the power to take our homes at its whim and completely ignore the very clear construct of the Constitution, then this document is worthless and all of our other basic rights can be taken away any time government officials can craft a socially justifiable excuse.

And just who is it that excels in “crafting socially justifiable excuses”? Why the Obama administration, of course!

One way or another…

Air, water, land. Congressional law, Supreme Court decision, or Cabinet Department fiat, it’s only a matter of time before we are just where this President wants us: completely dependent on the government for all our wants and needs.

Welcome to my nightmare.

Stoutcat

If Obama follows through with this and I”m sure he will, this should be considered treason and/or an impeachable offense. First his unconstitutional czars and now using the EPA to confirm a agreement/treaty at Copenhagen which bypasses the Constitution’s demand of 2/3 ratification by the Senate.

Obama Administration Announces Stalinist Environmental Tactics

The Obama Administration plans to bypass Congress to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. According to Fox News, a top White House economic official warned Tuesday the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will not wait for Congress to pass legislation on climate change.

The official said that if Congress does not take action, “the EPA is going to have to regulate in this area. And it is not going to be able to regulate in a market-based way, so it’s going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way.” He explained that legislation would provide compensation for small businesses hit hard by new rules, which EPA action alone could not provide.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson confirmed the threat at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen on Wednesday, saying regulators would frame new rules to complement cap-and-trade legislation pending in Congress. During her speech, she also bragged about the Obama Administration’s new environmental policies. The New York Times quoted her saying, “In less than 11 months … we have done more to promote clean energy and prevent climate change than happened in the last eight years.” She highlighted the EPA’s recent declaration that six greenhouse gases are a menace to public health and welfare, a move allowing the agency to tighten emissions restrictions on automobiles and industries.

The EPA’s sudden increased power gives credence to Jackson’s claims that the agency will be able to keep promises made at Copenhagen with or without Congressional approval.

House and Senate Republicans disagree and are planning a GOP delegation to Copenhagen to refute the Obama administration’s totalitarian boasts. Fox News reports that Senators Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, Roger Wicker of Mississippi, and John Barrasso of Wyoming will join U.S. Representatives Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, Joe Barton of Texas, and Darrell Issa of California at the conference next week. They plan a press conference to remind Copenhagen delegates that the United States cannot make any binding emissions agreements without Congressional approval. They also plan to give voice to skeptical views of global warming during official meetings of the conference.

Already this week the U.S. negotiator at Copenhagen has denied developing nations’ calls for climate-change reparations. Delegates from poor countries claim America owes a debt for supposed damage to their ecosystems, public health, and economies from greenhouse gas emissions. The New York Times reports that Todd Stern, the U.S. special envoy for climate change, scoffed at the idea during a press conference this week. “I actually completely reject the notion of a debt or reparations or anything of the like,” he said. “For most of the 200 years since the Industrial Revolution, people were blissfully ignorant of the fact that emissions caused a greenhouse effect. It’s a relatively recent phenomenon.” Stern did, however, express plans to enact measures to cut emissions and to grant foreign aid to developing countries.

TheNewAmerican.com

The following email was sent to a former college colleague who has decided that she is too good to speak to me anymore, and has now broken some very big laws.

So, now I’m taking matters into my own hands.

You can see what I wrote her, as I’m about to post the email.  She is a senior White House staffer.  Her name is Cassandra Butts.  Who hasn’t done as much as I have in DC or anywhere else.  She’s just got that horrific disease, called “I went to Harvard with Obama, I’ve got ‘tude, FUCK OFF you stupid cracker.”

Unfortunately that doesn’t work, is illegal and appalling.

And shows you exactly the attitude of THIS ADMINISTRATION.  And will be circulated all over the HILL, the blogosphere and where ever I have to send it.

Because she, just like everyone else in DC with power, doesn’t give a rat’s ass about anybody else.  And the only way she got that “power” also called a title on a business card and about as meaningful, was by flushing her morals down the toilet.

When they ARE PUBLIC SERVANTS.  Emphasis on the last word.  So this is just one of the lessons that dumb ass in the Oval Office is going to start learning if he keeps lying, breaking his word, and playing “I’m going to screw everyone else, give out the best bailout money to my buddies, and fuck the entire US population in the ass, so I can become a billionaire because among other things I own a shitload of pharma stock.

I WANT THAT FUCKING MEETING CASSANDRA.  NOW.

And if there are any more delays, there’s going to be further embarrassment.  If not your firing, and Obama’s impeachment.

GET IT?  Am I using small enough words?  For a “biologicially inferior piece of garbage” that the President has made sure to show his contempt for. Not to mention you.  And as for Ms. Barnes.  That goes for her too.

And the rest of the assholes in Congress  who are getting rich off of war, get bribes on the side, to vote against the interests of the people they represent on say healthcare, while we pay for their privileged lives.

That is NOT the change I voted for, nor one I believe in.  And the last thing DC needs at this point, is another clueless egomaniac on the loose, who thinks he’s the fucking Messiah.  Trust me, he’s a legend in his own fucking mind.  BUT HE’S GOING TO FUND MY FUCKING PROJECT.

SO START MAKING THE DATE PRONTO.  HE WORKS FOR ME TOO.  HE IS THE ULTIMATE PUBLIC SERVANT. NOT THE MESSIAH.

IT’S TIME HE REMEMBERED THAT.  INSTEAD OF PLAYING KING FOR A DAY, AND GETTING PISSED OFF WHEN HE IS RIGHTLY CRITICIZED FOR SPENDING FOUR TIMES WHAT THE AVERAGE AMERICAN GETS PAID ANNUALLY, IF THEY STILL HAVE A JOB THAT IS, TO TAKE THE SPOILED MISSUS TO NEW YORK.  THANKS TO OBAMA’S POLICIES ON CONTINUED OUTSOURCING, NOT TO MENTION HIS CORRUPT ECONOMIC ADVISORS.  WHO SHOULD ALL BE FIRED.

And if you think that is embarrassing, there’s plenty more to come.  You dumb clueless bitch.  Call me “privileged” again and I’m going to make you eat your fucking words.  Go ahead, bail out the banks and ruin my life.  THEY DID THIS TO ME YOU BITCH.  IS THAT YOUR DEFINITION OF PRIVILEGED?  THEN YOU ARE REALLY SICK if not morally depraved.  Oh, and I also expect a full investigation of all of the cabinet members who have threatened me, discriminated against me and you have both refused to investigate them, which is part of your job, but the IG’s who did too.

And a hurry it up over at JUSTICE, where you clowns are facing CRIMINAL ASSAULT AND BATTERY CHARGES, conveniently documented by the NYPD.  With a witness to boot, so don’t even try to get Bloomberg, another criminal to try to cover that one up.

I don’t take it kindly when DOJ, “Don’t cry for me Pharmantina” Pelosi’s office and the DLCC keep hanging up on me.  That is also illegal.  Didn’t they teach you that crap at Harvard?   Because you sure look as dumb as fuck to me.  Not to mention criminal, lawbreaking bastards.  Oh, and don’t even mention the word “defamatory” because I have multiple agencies doing so much investigating at this point, with paper work to back it up, on the illegal crap Obama is turning his back on at the municipal, state and federal level,  that you are going to look like, as those who have real educations, and speak multiple languages, say, like merde.

Capiche?  And the only reason I have edited out your email, is that I still have a modicum of mercy.  Although technically it should be listed, per Obama’s promise to make government more accountable, and transparent, on the goddamned White House website.  But, silly me, he’s “adjusted his position” on that too.  Personally I think the asshole should be “adjusted out of office.”

Also called impeachment for lying his ass off on the way into office in the first place.

You see.  You gotta put your ass on the line, and your money where your mouth is.

Because among other things, I’m going to kill that fucking healthcare bill.  It’s illegal, it’s immoral and it shows EXACTLY how little Obama really thinks about the people who put their trust in him.

And I think that is disgusting.  Oh, and Rambo. FUCK OFF.  I’m not afraid of you either.

Gimp Godzilla,

Over and Out.

To learn more about Cycle 9’s Lisa Jackson, visit her bio page here.

Source: Jo Lance

Source: Jeffrey Clark Grossman

Source: Jeffrey Clark Grossman

Source: Jeffrey Clark Grossman

To learn more about Cycle 9’s Lisa Jackson, visit her bio page here. Photo credit: Michel Nafziger.

To learn more about Cycle 9’s Lisa Jackson, visit her bio page here.

To learn more about Cycle 9’s Lisa Jackson, visit her bio page here.

To learn more about Cycle 9’s Lisa Jackson, visit her bio page here.  Photo credit: Julia Pogodina.

To learn more about Cycle 9’s Lisa Jackson, visit her bio page here.  Photo credit: Eugene Gallegos.

To learn more about Cycle 9’s Lisa Jackson, visit her bio page here.  Photo credit: Frederique Porter.

To learn more about Cycle 9’s Lisa Jackson, visit her bio page here. Photo credit: Tom Haslinger.

To learn more about Cycle 9’s Lisa Jackson, visit her bio page here. Photo credit: Drexina Nelson.

To learn more about Cycle 9’s Lisa Jackson, visit her bio page here.

To learn more about Cycle 9’s Lisa Jackson, visit her bio page here.

To learn more about Cycle 9’s Lisa Jackson, visit her bio page here.

I’m not a chemistry or biology major, but I thought I understood that when the body ‘burns’ food the end products are mainly water and carbon dioxide, together with some nitrogenous chemicals such as urea. The carbon dioxide enters the bloodstream, is carried to the lungs, and is excreted in the expired air of breathing. Yup, six billion people exhaling that awful CO² non-stop 24/7.  What should we do? I know,  we should regulate breathing to save the planet.

The Obama administration warned Congress this week that if it doesn’t move to regulate carbon dioxide, the Environmental Protection Agency will take a “command-and-control” role over the process in a way that could hurt business.

The Environmental Protection Agency said it has determined that planet-warming greenhouse gases pose a danger to public health and welfare. But it leaves unanswered questions about how the agency will go forward and which industries will be most affected.

The EPA reached the decision last month, and earlier this week the agency’s determination cleared White House review. Today’s announcement, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has said, will “trigger the beginnings of regulation of CO2 for this country.”

Industry groups are wringing their hands about what it will mean to have greenhouse gases regulated under the Clean Air Act, and environmentalists are chomping at the bit for the agency to get to work. While groups across the spectrum would prefer that Congress pass a new climate bill to address the matter, in the absence of that, the EPA is compelled to start regulating with the laws already on books.

“There’s no time left to waste,” said David Doniger, policy director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s climate center. “We want the EPA to do what it can under the existing Clean Air Act, because that’s what the law is today … We have a problem ahead of us that we’re long overdue in dealing with.” Glenn Beck, On Dec. 9^th, was engrossingly compelling in his monologue about “let’s do it now” regarding healthcare and a host of other issues this administration wants to regulate:

“We, the people, are thinking when has “just hurry up and do it” ever been the right strategy for something this big? It must be done now… but it won’t start for four years?

“What? Well, wait a minute. Why don’t we take our time, do it right — make sure it’s right — and then, once we’re finished, if we decide to, we could still enact it by 2013?

“No, instead: Don’t think, don’t ask, don’t wait another second! This plan …is a plan that will cost over a trillion dollars but is somehow free. It adds 40 million patients and no doctors, but somehow doesn’t ration care. It cuts Medicaid benefits, but no elderly suffer. It adds fees, taxes and bureaucracy, but no one pays.

“If you believe that, you’ll believe we’ve saved or created 200 million jobs this week alone and that the temperature is so hot right now, the Atlantic Ocean is boiling and despite the fact that we didn’t have even one this year, hurricanes are more powerful, intense and frequent than ever before.

“Don’t think about any of this at all — just act now!

“It only makes sense to people who will tell you to fly to the other side of the Earth for medical care, but then tell you to stop flying in jets because the Earth has a temperature.

“The same people that believe that terrorists should be understood and tried in New York courtrooms, but Marines should be tried by the military; that terrorists who mutilate, burn bodies and hang them from bridges should be believed over our Navy SEALs.

“Or that you can print money all you want because hyper-inflation would be good — it would pay off the debt and everyone will have money in their pockets. We have to keep spending our way out of enormous debt?

“Again, don’t think — just do it, right now!”

Well this just proves again, when you try to bypass the Constitutional process something may bite you back. The EPA ruling was an attempt at an end run about the Constitutional process of 2/3 of the Senate ratifying any treaty that Obama might sign in Copenhagen. The EPA ruling was an obvious stunt by Obama to put a feather in his cap when he goes to Copenhagen and it may have just backfired on him in the America. Congress should be up in arms at the president attempting to bypass them……..AGAIN! (remember the czars and Senate approval prescribed by the Constitution?) There’s some great insight and info about the Clean Air Act that the EPA must follow:

The EPA’s Carbon Bomb Fizzles

The administration has given a skittish Congress another reason not to pass cap and trade.

In the high-stakes game of chicken the Obama White House has been playing with Congress over who will regulate the earth’s climate, the president’s team just motored into a ditch. So much for threats.

The threat the White House has been leveling at Congress (that’s what it is~a threat) is the Environmental Protection Agency’s “endangerment finding,” which EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson finally issued this week. The finding lays the groundwork for the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions across the entire economy, on the grounds that global warming is hazardous to human health.(Science does not back this up, as far as a slight warming being hazardous~quite the opposite. Just a slight warming would benefit plants and humans.)

From the start, the Obama team has wielded the EPA action as a club, warning Congress that if it did not come up with cap-and-trade legislation the EPA would act on its own (kind of like a thug or bully would do)—and in a far more blunt fashion than Congress preferred. As one anonymous administration official menaced again this week: “If [Congress doesn't] pass this legislation,” the EPA is going to have to “regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty.”

The thing about threats, though, is that at some point you have to act on them. The EPA has been sitting on its finding for months, much to the agitation of environmental groups that have been upping the pressure for action.

President Obama, having failed to get climate legislation, didn’t want to show up to the Copenhagen climate talks with a big, fat nothing. So the EPA pulled the pin. In doing so, it exploded its own threat.

Far from alarm, the feeling sweeping through many quarters of the Democratic Congress is relief. Voters know cap-and-trade is Washington code for painful new energy taxes (Which translates to continued high unemployment). With a recession on, the subject has become poisonous in congressional districts. Blue Dogs and swing-state senators watched in alarm as local Democrats in the recent Virginia and New Jersey elections were pounded on the issue, and lost their seats.

Industry groups are gearing up for a legal onslaught; and don’t underestimate their prospects. The leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit in England alone are a gold mine for those who want to challenge the science underlying the theory of manmade global warming.

But the EPA’s legal vulnerabilities go beyond that. The agency derives its authority to regulate pollutants from the Clean Air Act. To use that law to regulate greenhouse gases, the EPA has to prove those gases are harmful to human health (thus, the endangerment finding). Put another way, it must provide “science” showing that a slightly warmer earth will cause Americans injury or death. Given that most climate scientists admit that a warmer earth could provide “net benefits” to the West, this is a tall order.

Then there are the rules stemming from the finding. Not wanting to take on the political nightmare of regulating every American lawn mower, the EPA has produced a “tailoring rule” that it says allows it to focus solely on large greenhouse gas emitters. Yet the Clean Air Act—authored by Congress—clearly directs the EPA to also regulate small emitters.

This is where green groups come in. The tailoring rule “invites suits,” says Sen. John Barrasso (R., Wyo.), who has emerged as a top Senate watchdog of EPA actions. Talk of business litigation aside, Mr. Barrasso sees “most of the lawsuits coming from the environmental groups” who want to force the EPA to regulate everything. The agency is going to get hit from all directions. Even if these outsiders don’t win their suits, they have the ability to twist up the regulations for a while.

Bottom line: At least some congressional Democrats view this as breathing room, a further reason to not tackle a killer issue in the run-up to next year’s election. Mr. Obama may emerge from Copehagen with some sort of “deal.” But his real problem is getting Congress to act, and his EPA move may have just made that job harder.

Online.WSJ.com

Want to take a trip down the environmental rabbit hole? Spark a discussion about climate change and watch human warming reach extremes far greater than any place on the globe.

To the right you have the laughable stance adopted by the conservative movement that humans are having no effect on climate and the atmosphere. At the other extreme are non-scientist policy makers and pundits holding “The End Is Near” signs on every street corner claiming that Iowa and Chad will be beachfront property by the end of next year.

Personally, I’m not qualified to discern which side is closer to representing the truth.

What I do know is that the debate should remain in scientific circles because I have yet to meet anyone qualified to entirely explain the variances in global temperatures. While world leaders are dithering in Copenhagen and arguing over hacked e-mails about tree rings versus thermometers, the public needs to close its ears to the noise produced on both sides of the global warming debate and focus on the tangible aspects of industrial pollution.

You don’t need to be an expert on carbon emissions or reference “parts per billion” to understand that we are seriously screwing up the planet. Public health has been compromised by the rise of industry. While there are several factors that contribute to the decline in public health, much of the discussion centers on energy production and sources because it’s the baseline driver of industry. So let’s look at it.

First of all, there is no such thing as clean coal. True, you can clean coal emissions, but the process of scrubbing coal to burn cleaner is just as much of an environmental disaster. There is no such thing as clean nuclear energy either, for that matter. True, the emissions are carbon neutral, but at some point every nuclear facility must dispose of the spent fuel used in production. The spent fuel must be stored somewhere and wherever that place is, it’s no place you want to be near.

Large wind farms in lakes and oceans are unrealistically expensive and remarkably inefficient. The Danes will tell you differently and espouse the virtues of wind power—just look at the marvel that is Copenhagen—but the fact remains that they are the largest manufacturers of wind turbines and have a vested economic interest in, shall we say, massaging the numbers. However, wind, solar and geothermal energy present viable options on a micro level and should be encouraged in every corner and backyard of the world. Individuals and small businesses need affordable access to clean energy solutions, not just municipalities.

Economically, there is no such thing as cheap oil anymore. Whether or not the Saudis or Venezuelans care to admit it, we have hit peak oil in the largest, most accessible oil fields around the world. Period. Are there places on Earth with large reserves of oil and natural gas? Yup. Is it easy to get to? Nope. Expensive to retrieve? Yup. Environmentally secure to extract? Nope.

As far as Cap and Trade is concerned—please. Giving large corporations and polluters the ability to buy their way out of cleaning their emissions is a lousy practice. Lisa Jackson from the EPA is on the right track by simply drawing a line in the sand and taking it out of the hands of Congress. The message from the Obama administration is clear: Clean it up. If Cap and Trade is allowed to continue one can only imagine Goldman Sachs creating a derivatives market that bundles pollution credits in with mortgages on homes with inefficient boilers and selling them to school boards in Greenland. No more government-backed securities bought by large corporations and sold on opaque markets, especially if they contain something as ethereal as carbon credits.

This is it folks. We have reached the tipping point. The only option heretofore is conservation.

Text from youtube post by M4GW…

November 24, 2009

EPA to Regulate All Aspects of American Life

Krauthammer: EPA Move May Bring a ‘Revolution on the Administration’s Hands’

“Look, it’s blackmail, a way of saying to Congress: ‘either you do cap-and-trade or we’re gonna do cap, no trade. We’re gonna regulate every aspect of American life.’ This is – if the EPA now has in its power – perhaps it will when acted over time – to intrude into every aspect of American life.” -Charles Krauthammer

The EPA Steps In To Regulate Greenhouse Gases In Case Of Cap And Trade Failure

Tyler Durden
Zero Hedge
December 8, 2009

Read Full Article Here

Yeah, I know this is a photo of Rod Blagojevich, but really, you can barely tell the difference.

I’ll make this one quick and reductive, because it’s 4:30 in the morning and I want to get back to sleep.

Former cheerleader and tactical fighter pilot Rick Perry, currently the longest-serving governor in Texas history, has decided that there’s not enough well-reviewed scientific evidence to consider greenhouse gasses a risk to public health. According to the Dallas Morning News, he is asking the Environmental Protection Agency to take back the statement it released on Monday in which it made the somewhat controversial assertion that “carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) … threaten the public health and welfare.”

The most surprising part of this is not the juxtaposition of having been both a male cheerleader and a freakin’ fighter pilot (though, believe me, I’m likely going to be thinking about that one for a while) but rather the fact that it took this long for the E.P.A. to say that these were dangerous gasses to have too much of swirling around in our air.

Gov. Perry—who is, if you’ll recall, both a former male cheerleader and a former fighter pilot—directed his appeal to the Environmental Protection Agency’s administrator, Walter Peck Lisa Jackson, a woman with multiple scientific degrees from reputable universities. Perry is joined in his opposition by a woman with no scientific credentials who attended four schools in five years before earning a bachelor’s degree in communications from a tier 3 university. So, you know, hear them out.

The kicker of this for me becomes clear when you bear in mind that plenty of people have confused my last name and called me “Rick Perry” instead of “Rick Barry.” Now I need to include “Cheerleader/Fighter Pilot/Governor of Texas” to the list of people

Gov. Rick Perry (See!?)

that make it impossible to find me when doing a Google search (a list that includes but is not limited to an editor of textbooks for religious schools, a professor from my undergraduate university, a notable funk musician, and a broadcaster notorious for saying awful things.)

In utterly unrelated news, I was having lunch today with a friend from Japan, and I mentioned the fact that earlier this year, when President Obama was meeting with a German official—I believe it was Chancellor Merkel, but I could be wrong—he was reported to have had a moment of abject honesty in which he said that it would probably be years before the U.S. could really be a world leader on climate change.

By Steven Mufson and David A. Fahrenthold

Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 8, 2009

The Obama administration moved closer Monday to issuing regulations on greenhouse gases, a step that would enable it to limit emissions across the economy even if Congress does not pass climate legislation.

The move, which coincided with the first day of the international climate summit in Copenhagen, seemed timed to reassure delegates there that the United States is committed to reducing its emissions even if domestic legislation remains bogged down. But it provoked condemnation from key Republicans and from U.S. business groups, which vowed to tie up any regulations in litigation.

In Monday’s much-anticipated announcement, the Environmental Protection Agency said that six gases, including carbon dioxide and methane, pose a danger to the environment and the health of Americans and that the agency would start drawing up regulations to reduce those emissions.

“These are reasonable, common-sense steps,” EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said, adding that they would protect the environment “without placing an undue burden on the businesses that make up the better part of our economy.” At the same time, however, EPA regulation is no one’s preferred outcome — not even the EPA’s. Jackson said her agency and other administration officials would still prefer if Congress acted before they did.

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), a leading proponent of a Senate climate bill, issued a statement The EPA’s “endangerment finding” — a key bureaucratic step in the regulatory process — was seen as a message to Congress and Copenhagen, but it was also a belated response to an order from the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in April 2007 that carbon dioxide should be considered a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. As a result, the court said, the EPA had not only the power but the obligation to regulate the gas. (In that case, Massachusetts v. EPA, the Bush administration was fighting against regulating carbon dioxide from vehicle tailpipes.)

Michael Morris, chief executive of American Electric Power, a utility that is the nation’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, said Monday that “we have been a proponent . . . to a congressional approach to this undertaking. This is the most awkward way we could go about it.” The EPA had to comply with direction from the courts, Morris said, but “there are better approaches, more cost-effective approaches and more productive approaches.”

It remains unclear whether the EPA’s regulatory cudgel will spur Congress to take faster action on the climate legislation that is now mired in the Senate or whether it will provoke a backlash.

“The stick approach isn’t going to work. In fact, Congress may retaliate,” said Mark Helmke, a senior adviser to Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.). “They could stop the funding, and they could change the law.”

Anticipating EPA action, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) tried unsuccessfully in September to prevent the agency from spending money to regulate stationary sources of greenhouse gases, such as power plants or factories, for one year. Murkowski, the ranking Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said in a statement Monday that the endangerment finding is “a blunt instrument that will severely hamper our attempts to bolster the economy and get Americans back to work.”

Some senators who environmental groups hope might vote for a climate bill also said they were unhappy. Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) called the move “regrettable.” And Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said in a statement that she is concerned that the move “will create burdens on American industry without providing any significant environmental benefits.”

“I strongly urge EPA to wait for Congress to find a solution,” Lincoln said.

Earlier this year, the Obama administration took the first step toward complying with the Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling by requiring automakers to increase the fuel economy — and therefore decrease the carbon emissions — of new cars and trucks by 2016. The ailing automakers supported the accord.

Monday’s finding is another step toward compliance. “There are no more excuses for delay,” Jackson said. “This administration will not ignore science and the law any longer.”

Supporters of regulation note that the Clean Air Act has led to some of the great U.S. environmental success stories, producing significant drops in smog and soot. But greenhouse gases could prove far more difficult to fight. They don’t just come from smokestacks, but from millions of auto tailpipes, airplanes, ships, home furnaces and even the digestive tracts of cattle. And there is no simple piece of hardware that emitters can buy to keep the gases out of the air.

“There’s no catalytic converter. There’s no scrubber. There’s nothing,” said Jeffrey R. Holmstead, who headed the EPA’s air-pollution programs during the Bush administration and now works with the law firm Bracewell & Giuliani. Instead, solutions probably would include switching the fuels burned in power plants and, in the future, using machinery to capture emissions and store them underground.

The Clean Air Act set a low threshold for regulation that opponents argue would require rules for everything from laundries to office buildings, from cow farms to coal plants. But the EPA said it would impose new rules only on large factories, refineries, power plants and other facilities emitting more than 25,000 tons a year of carbon dioxide.

When these plants upgrade their facilities, or when new ones like them are built, they would be required to install the “best available control technology” for limiting greenhouse-gas emissions, while “taking into account costs.” In October, the EPA said there were 13,661 facilities that size; it estimated that every year 128 new facilities and 273 existing facilities seeking modifications would require new permits.

“What EPA can require is controls that are technically feasible and cost-effective,” said David Donziger, policy director of the climate center at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “With CO2 there is the chance to save money, which is rarer for other pollutants.”

Together, these large sources account for about half of all U.S. emissions, the EPA said. But it’s still unclear what, exactly, the “best available” technology should be. Jackson said the EPA is still working on that.

Although many business leaders have urged Congress to adopt climate legislation, some remain staunchly opposed. Those groups also condemned the EPA for moving forward with regulations.

“This action poses a threat to every American family and business if it leads to regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Such regulation would be intrusive, inefficient and excessively costly,” said Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, whose members have big oil refineries and petrochemical plants. “It is a decision that is clearly politically motivated to coincide with the start of the Copenhagen climate summit.”