EPA Ruling Renews Endless TTAC Debate on Global Warming

Robert Farago
by Robert Farago
epa ruling renews endless ttac debate on global warming

File this one under, hey, how did we miss that? Time reports that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has ruled that cars belch CO2 and CO2 causes global warming and global warming will kill us all later soon. In other words, “On March 20, the EPA sent what is called an “endangerment finding” to the White House, a proposal that means the agency found that there is a scientific case that man-made global warming poses a threat to human welfare.” A threat to welfare! How can government exist without welfare? Anyway . . . “By concluding that greenhouse gases pose a threat to human welfare, the EPA’s finding could lay the groundwork for nationwide regulation of CO2 emissions — just as the EPA is require to regulate pollutants like smog-causing sulfur dioxide.” So, cars?

While the EPA has so far been silent about how it might actually regulate CO2 — and the endangerment finding is only an early step in a process that could take a year or longer — environmentalists say it’s difficult to imagine that the agency would attempt to control every possible source of greenhouse gas emissions. “People running the EPA have common sense,” says Frank O’Donnell, head of the environmental group Clean Air Watch. “They’re going to focus the efforts on the biggest sources” like the auto industry and the utility sector.

Lucky auto sector, then.

Join the conversation
4 of 60 comments
  • Tesla deathwatcher Tesla deathwatcher on Mar 25, 2009

    Well said, golden2husky.

  • Malcolmmacaulay Malcolmmacaulay on Mar 25, 2009

    psarhjinian: "I swore I wouldn’t do this, but I have some time to kill, so what the heck…" Thanks, I certainly appreciated it. cheers Malcolm

  • Pch101 Pch101 on Mar 25, 2009
    I made the comments (sweeping generalizations, admittedly) about secondhand smoke in this thread about global warming because I see a connection between the two. You have the connection reversed. You claimed that there are multiple studies confirming your argument, in an attempt to infer that there is an active debate within the scientific community about these issues. That claim is false. The reality is that there is no such debate; these arguments happen among laymen, but not among those who are learned about these matters. There is no argument, but a single study, one which is outside the mainstream and widely rejected. Psarhjinian got it right. This is a variation of the Big Lie, with falsehoods being repeated in the hopes of convincing the unlearned and uneducated of "facts" that have not been established and of "controversy" that doesn't exist amongst those who know. There is a difference between fact and opinion, and that difference has been obscured by the deniers on this thread. The science on the subjects is clear; the consensus opinions are that climate change and secondhand smoke are both problematic. It's your right to disagree with that consensus if you choose. But by disagreeing, you are actively rejecting the science. You have to make up your mind -- if you want to reject the science because you don't like it, then be content in playing the role of the iconoclast who actively rejects the science, rather than pretend that there is some raging debate that doesn't exist. Arguing that the science is behind you is simply factually wrong, and not a defensible position to take.

  • Tesla deathwatcher Tesla deathwatcher on Mar 26, 2009

    I've noticed on this website, and on others, that most people who comment tend to do one of two things. They offer their own opinions and ideas. Or they attack others for their opinions. I admire the former and feel the latter are pretty worthless.