|
Post by curiousgeorge on Dec 28, 2009 16:20:57 GMT
Murkowski is also likely to rerun a previous amendment according to "The Hill", to block EPA regulation. Senate faces January vote on EPA greenhouse gas rules By Ben Geman - 12/27/09 01:37 PM ET Senate support for mandatory greenhouse gas curbs will face an early test in 2010 if the chamber considers an amendment that would restrict EPA’s power to regulate emissions from power plants and other stationary sources. Under a Senate agreement reached Tuesday, the planned January debate on further increasing the U.S. debt ceiling will include a vote on Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R-Alaska) amendment that would block EPA from working on emissions rules. The Senate will take up the debt measure Jan. 20 Murkowski had wanted to attach the amendment to an EPA spending bill in September but Democratic leadership did not allow a vote. Her plan would have required EPA to take a one-year hiatus from crafting restrictions, and Murkowski spokesman Robert Dillon said the debt bill amendment is the same measure. Dillon said it is not certain that Murkowski will seek a vote but noted that the unanimous consent agreement reached Dec. 22 on the debt measure gives Murkowski the option. The agreement requires 60 votes for the amendment to pass. Separately, Murkowski is seeking a so-called resolution of disapproval that would allow Congress to block EPA’s “endangerment finding” that greenhouse gases threaten human health – a precursor to emissions regulations. Democrats and White House officials say they prefer Congress creating a new emissions law, but that EPA must move ahead if Congress does not act. Murkowski’s amendment to the debt ceiling bill would likely face a tough climb reaching 60 votes, though Dillon argues “there are a lot of moderate Democrats that support what we are doing.” thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/73671-senate-faces-january-vote-on-epa-greenhouse-gas-rules
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Dec 28, 2009 18:31:16 GMT
Under Re: EPA rules CO2 a pollutant and will regulate, curiousgeorge posted « Reply #29 Today at 10:10am » listing future events.
There are more:
In December 2010, John Holdren warns of an incipient ice age in a Time Magazine op-ed. He recommends population reduction and control. Much of his material had been published before.
In January 2011, responding to news reports of food shortages not seen since the crop failures of 1780 - 1820, First Lady Michelle Obama advises "Let them eat cake".
|
|
|
Post by sentient on Dec 29, 2009 3:18:05 GMT
A BTW Sentient, what are your thoughts regarding the potential for a global class action in connection with this? It would seem to me that nearly everyone on the planet would have standing, true? Now there's a thought. One I hadn't thought of to be sure. But this could sprout something akin to legs eventually. It is sort of hard to imagine anything remotely resembling an honest evaluation resulting from UEA or U.Penn's investigations of the activities of principals Jones and Mann. What is more likely is the FOI assault which is beginning in both the UK and the US, and that normal slow grinding away of the legal gears in both arenas. Depending upon what happens to whatever happened to the CRU's lost or deleted data (remember the UEA stated nothing has been lost, so it would be legally "discoverable"), the denudation occasioned by FOI2009.zip stands a fair chance of slowly, inexorably revealing the true fabric of the CO2/global warming hypothesis. With each legal decision, the ante will be raised or lowered, as the case may be. The avenues of legal attack are virtually wide open right now, and even if a decision is reached on one point, the same evidence could be used in yet another attack. The sums involved more or less guarantee active legal interest. As it unwinds, investors who stand to lose significantly will also be tempted to go on the prod in the hopes of recovering their investments, not unlike the Madoff victims are doing today. More avenues of attack. In California, in 4 days time, AB32 begins enforcement. Businesses that have closed, relocated out-of-state, or suffer costs due to foundationless "science" will be numerous and probably vengeful. Each legal decision which augurs against CO2 orthodoxy, will simply fuel the next wave of injured party's and their search for justice. It may not take a populous class-action suit, but class-action suits from the first tier of industries, transportation, electricity generation and fossil fuel interests, have a lot of potential financial inertia in this game. And the UEA and U.Penn. may have some liability in this regard. As a single citizen, when my power bill goes up next month, and fuel prices carry carbon taxes, I become eligible to claim financial harm if and when the foundation of the CO2 conspiracy founders under the accumulated weight of cooked data and matheMANNicaly generated algorEithms (e.g. Nature Tricks). It is almost impossible to imagine the cascade of potential liability that may, decision after grueling decision, accrue to this almost incomprehensible hoax. Any lawyer worth his ambulance chasing salt is unlikely to fail to comprehend this. This from long practical involvement with the species.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Dec 29, 2009 14:20:13 GMT
Thanks. It's sure to keep an army of legal eagles employed for decades. One additional question: Are there any potential immunities (you may be aware of) available to the UNEP/IPCC or other International and National agencies that may be named as parties/co-conspirators in the upcoming litigation avalanche?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 29, 2009 23:08:56 GMT
Windmills at their finest. ND is one of the best places to generate wind electricity. From the following link, take a look at the 3 locations. There was a 7 state study done in my area that showed that when the wind goes below power production capabilities in one area, all areas seem to go down. Now, if you had to rely on this source of power to heat your home, you would get a bit chilly. www2.minnkota.com/~lmbbs/langchrt.htm
|
|
|
Post by sentient on Dec 30, 2009 5:45:54 GMT
Couldn't say, curiousgeorge. At times overexposed to legalities, the answer would incur unknown to me intricacies of treaty, international and territorial prerogatives not even vaguely guessable by a geologist. A question either answerable by a qualified jurist perusing this site (lacking funds to pursue a private legal interpretation otherwise), or the fullness of prosecutorial time.
Be ever vigilant and report. I am keeping notes. Report any and all filings/findings. This is the arena this is likely to play itself out in. Carefully crafted discovery motions, public filings, briefs from friends of the court, enjoinings and possibly class-action suits. Keep in mind, the obsequious contributions of Big Oil and Big Power are rank at many of the institutions under scrutiny now as recipients.
Think deep pockets, all you legal eagles........
The audience holds its collective breath!
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Dec 30, 2009 7:31:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Dec 30, 2009 12:47:33 GMT
Windmills at their finest. Now, if you had to rely on this source of power to heat your home, you would get a bit chilly. Something I notice most anti-carbon types don't get is that since we're burning carbon anyway...there are some ways that are better than others to use it. For example, a home heating system that burns hydrocarbons is 2-3 times more efficient than...burning them in a power plant and using electric heat in your home. I wonder if the EPA would take this into account...intentionally or otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Dec 30, 2009 13:16:57 GMT
At least the French defend their constitution and use it - unlike the USA where the Administration and Congress appear to have lost sight of the constitution and taken powers that they do not legally have. Read the 10th Amendment.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Dec 30, 2009 14:33:44 GMT
Couldn't say, curiousgeorge. At times overexposed to legalities, the answer would incur unknown to me intricacies of treaty, international and territorial prerogatives not even vaguely guessable by a geologist. A question either answerable by a qualified jurist perusing this site (lacking funds to pursue a private legal interpretation otherwise), or the fullness of prosecutorial time. Be ever vigilant and report. I am keeping notes. Report any and all filings/findings. This is the arena this is likely to play itself out in. Carefully crafted discovery motions, public filings, briefs from friends of the court, enjoinings and possibly class-action suits. Keep in mind, the obsequious contributions of Big Oil and Big Power are rank at many of the institutions under scrutiny now as recipients. Think deep pockets, all you legal eagles........ The audience holds its collective breath! Here's a bit of info that may be worth paying attention to: www.abanet.org/environ/calendar/pdf/Copehagen.Flyer.Environ.CME.pdf . The ABA is hosting a "de-brief" of Copenhagen next week, so we may get some clues regarding future legal maneuverings. From: www.abanet.org/environ/ "Join our panel of recognized climate change thought leaders from private practice, government, policy institutes, and industry for a one hour teleconference as we distill what was accomplished during those chaotic two weeks, what critical issues remain unresolved and their potential outcomes, and the impact of Copenhagen on both industry and the US political process. Each of our panelists will have attended COP15, providing the audience a unique perspective and first hand account. Time will be set aside during to the latter part of the teleconference for audience members to obtain answers to their own questions from the panelists." There are also a number of embedded links to ABA blogs, newsletters, and future meetings on the subject, at the above home page, which will no doubt shed light on what to expect from the legal community.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Dec 30, 2009 17:30:15 GMT
Couldn't say, curiousgeorge. At times overexposed to legalities, the answer would incur unknown to me intricacies of treaty, international and territorial prerogatives not even vaguely guessable by a geologist. A question either answerable by a qualified jurist perusing this site (lacking funds to pursue a private legal interpretation otherwise), or the fullness of prosecutorial time. Be ever vigilant and report. I am keeping notes. Report any and all filings/findings. This is the arena this is likely to play itself out in. Carefully crafted discovery motions, public filings, briefs from friends of the court, enjoinings and possibly class-action suits. Keep in mind, the obsequious contributions of Big Oil and Big Power are rank at many of the institutions under scrutiny now as recipients. Think deep pockets, all you legal eagles........ The audience holds its collective breath! Wow, is this what it feels like to be prescient (even tho this is a suit claiming damages from AGW, what's good for the gander....... )? online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703478704574612150621257422.htmlExcerpt: But global warming is, well, global: It doesn't matter whether ubiquitous CO2 emissions come from American Electric Power or Exxon—or China. "There is no logical reason to draw the line at 30 defendants as opposed to 150, or 500, or even 10,000 defendants," says David Rivkin, an attorney at Baker Hostetler and a contributor to our pages, in an amicus brief in the Katrina case. "These plaintiffs—and any others alleging injury by climatic phenomena—would have standing to assert a damages claim against virtually every entity and individual on the planet, since each 'contributes' to global concentrations of carbon dioxide."
|
|
|
Post by sentient on Dec 30, 2009 22:15:14 GMT
Excellent find! Honestly gals and guys, this is where this will play itself out, even if EPA does manage to regulate under the CAA, the suits will be fast and furious, If cap and trade is passed, the legal challenges are almost endless, and the nuisance angle throws the door open so wide you can drive a power plant through it.
The horror begins.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Dec 31, 2009 13:37:53 GMT
From : The Atlanta Business Chronicle www.11alive.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=139198&catid=3Quote: Six Republican congressmen from Georgia have signed onto an Atlanta-based organization's legal challenge of a federal announcement that could lead to government regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. The Southeastern Legal Foundation ( www.southeasternlegal.org/ ) filed a petition last week calling on the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider its Dec. 7 "endangerment finding" declaring carbon dioxide and other gases linked to global warming a threat to public health and the environment. The petition argues that news of a conspiracy within the scientific community to hide evidence that calls into question manmade impacts on global warming has emerged since the closing of public comment on the EPA filing. According to widespread media reports, e-mails stolen from the climate unit at the University of East Anglia in Great Britain appeared to show some of the world's leading scientists discussing how to shield data from the public. "The scientific basis for the EPA endangerment finding is flawed, based on questionable and potentially fraudulent data, and certainly does not rise to the level of certainty necessary to upend the American economy, toss millions out of work, and which promises little or no climate change benefit over the next half-century," said Shannon Goessling, the group's executive director and chief legal counsel. "Using the Clean Air Act as a weapon and a shield does not justify the bigger agenda of command-and-control." The foundation also criticized the EPA finding as an attempt to bypass Congress by imposing costly regulation of greenhouse gases administratively. The fate of pending legislation to regulate carbon dioxide emissions through a cap-and-trade system is far from certain. "The goal is to compel the federal government to follow the laws as enacted by Congress and to pursue legitimate public policy based on legitimate scientific data," Goessling said. "The American people deserve no less, and the U.S. Constitution mandates it." Joining the foundation as plaintiffs are Republican U.S. Reps. Paul Broun of Athens, Nathan Deal of Gainesville, Phil Gingrey of Marietta, John Linder of Duluth, Tom Price of Roswell and Lynn Westmoreland of Grantville. " Endquote More info here: www.epalawsuit.com/
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Dec 31, 2009 13:55:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 31, 2009 14:26:37 GMT
Another request from the library is in order I see.
|
|