EPA refuses unprecedented expansion
Well, it's something.
Today the EPA answered the Supreme Court's request that it determine whether or not global warming creates public health risks. The 1000 page report came to no conclusions but that the EPA was not the agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Such an activity was better suited for the congress said the EPA chief Johnson.
Blame the current President and his administration, but what bureaucracy doesn't want to expand its base? What type of scientific evidence is so overwhelming that the Environmental Protection Agency thinks that the main legislative body of the country would do a better job in controlling and reversing the effects of that evidence. Instituting a regulatory and economic nightmare is bad business - particularly when the causal relationship between global warming and greenhouse gases has not been proven - not to mention the anthropogenic portion of those gases not clearly apportioned between sources or differentiated from natural sources.
Here's the NPR report about the President kicking the can down the road.
Frankly, I'm somewhat pleased to find that the Supreme Court still sees the need to tie environmental regulations to human health.
If carbon dioxide emissions are so harmful, but coal burning is so cheap and plentiful, let's let the market fix it at the source and not allow harm by degrees. We're just no where near understanding the big picture and determining that such extreme emission control measures make economic sense.
Today the EPA answered the Supreme Court's request that it determine whether or not global warming creates public health risks. The 1000 page report came to no conclusions but that the EPA was not the agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Such an activity was better suited for the congress said the EPA chief Johnson.
Blame the current President and his administration, but what bureaucracy doesn't want to expand its base? What type of scientific evidence is so overwhelming that the Environmental Protection Agency thinks that the main legislative body of the country would do a better job in controlling and reversing the effects of that evidence. Instituting a regulatory and economic nightmare is bad business - particularly when the causal relationship between global warming and greenhouse gases has not been proven - not to mention the anthropogenic portion of those gases not clearly apportioned between sources or differentiated from natural sources.
Here's the NPR report about the President kicking the can down the road.
Frankly, I'm somewhat pleased to find that the Supreme Court still sees the need to tie environmental regulations to human health.
If carbon dioxide emissions are so harmful, but coal burning is so cheap and plentiful, let's let the market fix it at the source and not allow harm by degrees. We're just no where near understanding the big picture and determining that such extreme emission control measures make economic sense.
Comments