You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
-Signs, Portents, and the Weather-
EPA Wants More Regs; Cites Global Warming
2008-07-18
Government scientists detailed a rising death toll from heat waves, wildfires, disease and smog caused by global warming in an analysis the White House buried so it could avoid regulating greenhouse gases. In a 149-page document released Monday, the experts laid out for the first time the scientific case for the grave risks that global warming poses to people, and to the food, energy and water on which society depends.

"Risk (to human health, society and the environment) increases with increases in both the rate and magnitude of climate change," scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency said. Global warming, they wrote, is "unequivocal" and humans are to blame.
There! That's settled! Again.

The document suggests that extreme weather events and diseases carried by ticks and other organisms could kill more people as temperatures rise. Allergies could worsen because climate change could produce more pollen. Smog, a leading cause of respiratory illness and lung disease, could become more severe in many parts of the country. At the same time, global warming could mean fewer illnesses and deaths due to cold.

"This document if subsequently shown to be true and free of big-government regulation lust would inescapably, unmistakably shows that global warming pollution not only threatens human health and welfare, but it is adversely impacting human health and welfare today," said Vickie Patton, deputy general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund. "What this document demonstrates is that the imperative for action is now."

While the science selectively cited in the report pointed to a link between public health and climate change, the Bush administration has worked to discourage such a connection. To acknowledge one would compel the government to regulate greenhouse gases the real heart of the matter.

The administration on Friday dismissed the scientists' findings when it made clear that the Clean Air Act was the wrong tool to control global warming pollution. Instead, the administration asked for public comment on a range of ways to reduce greenhouse gases from cars, airplanes, trains and smokestacks under the 1970 law.

A better solution, the EPA said, would have Congress writing a law aimed just at global warming. Jonathan Shradar, a spokesman for EPA chief Stephen Johnson, said that while the administrator knows that "the science is clear and that climate change is a significant issue", Johnson did not want to make a "rash decision under the wrong law." "Once there is an endangerment finding, then the Clean Air Act is activated and regulation may begin," Shradar said.

In December, the White House refused to open an e-mail from the EPA that included the finding that climate change endangered public welfare. The determination was based on an earlier, and similar version of the document released Monday. At the time, the White House insisted on removing all references to the science, according to Jason K. Burnett, a former adviser to Johnson on climate issues.

Burnett, a Democrat, has charged that Vice President Dick Cheney's office deleted portions of congressional testimony last October prepared by the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that made similar assertions on the health effects of global warming. The White House contends the testimony was changed because of doubts about the science.

After the release of the EPA analysis, industry representatives suggested the link between climate change and health was weak. "The question is not a scientific one. It is a legal and political question, of how much impact justifies the extraordinary use of the Clean Air Act," said Scott Segal, director of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, a coalition of power companies.

While no one doubts that more people die in a heat wave, the question is whether that death is "related to manmade greenhouse gas emissions," he said.
Posted by:Bobby

#11  You get the impression that the deck chairs on the Titanic are being shuffled and re-arranged in Washington. Do the grand dragons of government really believe that more regulations and taxes to support the regulatory load are the answer to all our problems. Man they are out of touch with reality. This is crazy.
Posted by: JohnQC   2008-07-18 21:19  

#10  SToP THE INSANITY!

If you really wanna stop the insanity you start with the bloated federal budget and the idea that impositions such as mandates increased taxes and tariffs help anyone except congress and government.

republicans have been getting by for decades with the idea that imposing mandates and increasing the size and pwer of the federal government, while simultaneously talking about small government and family values. Their activities are destroying both.

The federal budget must be gutted, and everything is on the table to cut, not reduce, not borrow, but to totally eliminate.

There is no other option to save America but to destroy the power of an overly bloated government.

Do not cut taxes, but eliminate them

Do not reduce government but destroy its size and its power.

If I hear anyone talk about anything but this, I will not be listening.
Posted by: badanov   2008-07-18 19:25  

#9  The EPA has threatened to fine the city of Wichita KS because they are on track to violate some EPA standards. But not because Wichita is polluting more but because the EPA has lowered the standards to an unachievable amount.

Are the farmers going drive a battery rig out into the field, plug their rig in somewhere, then carry 50 haybales to where they are needed. Then hop on their bike and ride it 10 miles home in December. Meanwhile hollywood flys overhead.

A power grab. I understand the point of the EPA but they are not mandated for this behavior.
Posted by: swksvolFF   2008-07-18 17:20  

#8  Um yeah, it would be a 23 mile bike ride for me to go to the nearest town big enough to have a Kroger or Meijer. That's a tad long for me, the ice cream would surely melt on the way home.
Not everyone fits into the little gas saving schemes that they are pushing. There is no bus line out here, no taxis, no high speed rail. I'm not complaining, I like living away from the r-tards that infest every city in this country. But to callously tell people to "get a bike" is falling somewhat short of an effective argument.
Posted by: bigjim-ky   2008-07-18 14:49  

#7  EPA Wants More Regs [Budget and Power to ruin people's lives]; Cites Global Warming

Fixed.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2008-07-18 13:36  

#6  The best thing that could be done for America is to disband the EPA along with several other noxious federal regulatory agencies that do nothing but promote their political agenda by pretending to help we less enlightened citizens to the path of true enlightenment. Hypocritical ignorant bastards.
Posted by: RWV   2008-07-18 13:10  

#5  If the end is so close why can't we buy a hydrogen car , or an electric car that actually has a range far enough to go to work and back? Why can't we build a nuclear plant or an algae farm for ethanol on an industrial scale?
All the tech is there, nobody is turning out these products, why?


You know why Jim. It's them. They've always been after us and our SUVs. Big oil and
Washington are working together to maximize our misery. I have gone ballistic about this, I've shed car and have gone to a bike and Shanks Mare. I'm being followed sometimes tho. The man from Exxon (2 xx!) is following me trying to force me to buy gas. I hate him, but I have dreams, bitter dreams in which all the big oil stocks collapse as the price of gasoline rises! It would serve dem right. I have plans, big plans.. bwaaaaaa brwaaaaaaaaaaa hahahahaha bwhahah!

tl:dr: Drive less, walk more, get a bike. Don't bitch so much.


Posted by: .5MT   2008-07-18 12:53  

#4  Someone needs to stop the BULLSHIT machine in DC and the press, regarding anthropogenic global warming. Its is NOT NOT NOT a facts, its a supposition, and a poorly supported one at this point.

SToP THE INSANITY!
Posted by: OldSpook   2008-07-18 12:24  

#3  Well they gotta get something passed before this gets to the masses:

The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming ‘incontrovertible.’
Posted by: DarthVader   2008-07-18 10:38  

#2  Government scientists detailed a rising death toll from heat waves, wildfires, disease and smog caused by global warming in an analysis the White House buried so it could avoid regulating greenhouse gases.

As real historical research shows, there are significant population drops when things got colder, not warmer. And anyone with more than an primary school education can see that climate is not static. It moves. It's always moved.

Could there be 'more' deaths because there are now 'more' people, particularly those who choose to live in areas that previously were not subject to mass habitation. However, why worry about little things like that when you have an agenda to push.

GIGO
Posted by: Procopius2k   2008-07-18 09:10  

#1  If the end is so close why can't we buy a hydrogen car , or an electric car that actually has a range far enough to go to work and back? Why can't we build a nuclear plant or an algae farm for ethanol on an industrial scale?
All the tech is there, nobody is turning out these products, why?

Yeah, yeah, I know, honda has a hydrogen car coming out sometime between now and the end of the universe. Electric cars are getting better and batteries need to be tested, blah, blah, blah. If things are so bad, why not release them even if they are not 100% perfect? I don't see the govt. or private business doing jack-shit to avert this so called doomsday scenario. Just a lot of whining
and crying and asking for more money/power in EPA's case.
Posted by: bigjim-ky   2008-07-18 09:00  

00:00