The Obama administration announced that it would continue a Bush administration rule forbidding government scientists from considering global warming when protecting polar bears pursuant to the Endangered Species Act.
The Obama EPA justified their decision, “saying that it’s scientifically impossible to use the Endangered Species Act to regulate greenhouse gases, which are contributing to the warming of the earth and the resulting melting of bears’ habitat in Alaska. The emissions from a cement plant in Georgia, for example, can’t be tied directly to the precipitous decline in polar ice.”
Um, OK, then. By that same logic, the EPA has no business regulating carbon emissions pursuant to the Clean Air Act. If the emissions from “just one car tailpipe in Arizona can’t be tied directly to global warming” and it is “scientifically impossible to use the Endangered Species Act to regulate greenhouse gases” than shouldn’t it is also be scientifically impossible to use the CAA to regulate greenhouse gasses?
At least the polar bear should be well-fed under the Obama bus.
Saturday, May 09, 2009
"REBRANDING" GLOBAL WARMING
"With a number of studies now showing there has been no global warming over at least the last 10 years and that the Earth is actually cooling, environmentalists are looking to re-brand their message."
"The Denver Examiner reports 'global warming' was found to be too political and polarizing, so 'climate crisis' is recommended. The group urges the use of 'pollution' instead of 'carbon'; [and] 'new energy jobs' instead of 'green jobs'."
New bottle, same whine.
"The Denver Examiner reports 'global warming' was found to be too political and polarizing, so 'climate crisis' is recommended. The group urges the use of 'pollution' instead of 'carbon'; [and] 'new energy jobs' instead of 'green jobs'."
New bottle, same whine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
