Vermont could clear way for new U.S. emissions rules

Hum, this is the same state that sentenced a child sexual predator to 6
months of rehab!!!
"Larry Bud" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On May 11, 6:17 pm, "C. E. White" > wrote:
>> I saw this article and thought the comment on Toyota hybrids near the
>> bottom
>> was interesting- "While hybrid technology has raised manufacturing costs,
>> Toyota Motor Corp., maker of the Prius hybrid, expects cost-cutting on
>> hybrid production to make the cars as profitable as traditional gasoline
>> models by 2010. By that point it expects to be selling 1 million hybrids
>> a
>> year."
>>
>> **********************************************
>>
>> Vermont could clear way for new U.S. emissions rules
>>
>> Reuters |
>> May 11, 2007 - 9:00 am
>>
>> BOSTON (Reuters) -- A Vermont judge could soon clear the way for nearly a
>> dozen states to surmount auto industry protests and limit emissions from
>> cars and light trucks to protect the environment, legal experts said.
>>
>> The rural northeastern state in 2005 followed California's lead in
>> calling
>> for a 30 percent cut in the amount of carbon dioxide, the main gas blamed
>> for global warming, emitted from automobiles starting with 2009 models.
>> U.S.
>> automakers have sued both states, and Rhode Island, seeking to have the
>> rules overturned.
>>
>> Vermont's suit is the first to go to trial.
>
> If they really believe what they're suing for, they should immediately
> ban the import of all cars and light trucks.
>



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Jeff" > wrote in message
news:JBi1i.28755$Ae.7028@trnddc07...
>
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> In article .net>, C. E.
>> White wrote:
>>
>>> The Vermont trial began shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in an
>>> unrelated case that carbon dioxide can be regulated as a pollutant,
>>> rejecting a 2003 argument by the federal Environmental Protection Agency
>>> that it did not have authority over carbon dioxide.
>>
>> So, now the federal government through the EPA can regulate our
>> breathing? ?
>
> No. However, the EPA does regulate the pollution that is put into the
> atmosphere. For example, the EPA lowered the amount of sulfur oxides that
> are allowed to go into the atmosphere, thereby decreasing acid rain.
>
> The EPA doesn't regulate your breathing. They do make it so you have clean
> air to breath, though.
>
> If you want to breath dirty air, take up smoking.
>
> Jeff

I apologize for the repost. The US Supreme court ruled that the EPA has both
the right and duty to regulate CO2 emissions. You can read their opinion
he http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinio...df/05-1120.pdf or you can
search Google news or yahoo or whatever for the newspaper reports about
this. The ruling was about 6 weeks ago.

Jeff

Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), in a sure sign
that the Apocalypse is upon us, someone calling themself Brent P said
this in rec.autos.driving:
> In article et>, necromancer wrote:
>
> > capitalism to socialism to communism. Seems to me that we are headed
> > back to feudalism with the lord ruling over the serfs (in that matter,
> > is a communist dictatorship any different) if that egg sucking yellow
> > dog bush and his cronies get their way.
>
> Yep. That's the apparent plan. A modern, technological feudalism.

That's it. Everyone is fat and happy stuffing themselves with big macs
and sitting infront of their high definition televisions paid for with
their 15th mortgage soaking up the propaganda like a filthy sponge.....

> > THose "carbon offsets," are so ****ing hilarious. To think that people
> > are dumb enough to think that by giving some corporation *more* of their
> > money that they are going to make one bit of difference; and we allow
> > these **** heads to reporduce. I guess that PT Barnum was right,
> > "THere's a sucker born every minute."
>
> The idea is seemingly to make transportation so expensive, only those
> like Al Gore and the Queen of England can afford it.

Or will be allowed to have it. Nine to one says that when they are done
taking our cars, the bicycles will be next....

> >> There is huge environmental damage going on, china is spewing all sorts
> >> of pollution, the land is being torn up in many places in the world
> >> destroying habitats, over fishing, GMO crops, etc... and most of it is
> >> entirely needless since technology and knowledge exist to avoid it. It's
> >> just not used.
>
> > Really. You don't hear the greens or the kyoto fascists saying a word
> > about that.
>
> Don't you know, china with a trillion dollars piled up cannot
> afford to protect the environment.... but the in debt up to the eyeballs
> and then some USA can afford it.

Just wait untill the ones we owe that debt to - that which wasn't stolen
from the social security trust (sic) - come a calling for it....

--
"I always heard that primitave hoo-mans lacked intelligence,
but I never thought they'd be this stupid."
--Quark

In article <JBi1i.28755$Ae.7028@trnddc07>, Jeff wrote:
>
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> In article .net>, C. E.
>> White wrote:
>>
>>> The Vermont trial began shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in an
>>> unrelated case that carbon dioxide can be regulated as a pollutant,
>>> rejecting a 2003 argument by the federal Environmental Protection Agency
>>> that it did not have authority over carbon dioxide.
>>
>> So, now the federal government through the EPA can regulate our
>> breathing? ?
>
> No. However, the EPA does regulate the pollution that is put into the
> atmosphere. For example, the EPA lowered the amount of sulfur oxides that
> are allowed to go into the atmosphere, thereby decreasing acid rain.
>
> The EPA doesn't regulate your breathing. They do make it so you have clean
> air to breath, though.
>
> If you want to breath dirty air, take up smoking.

Um... if the EPA is going to have the power to regulate CARBON DIOXIDE,
then can they regulate breathing which emits CARBON DIOXIDE? Have to
explain everything around here these days.

In article et>, necromancer wrote:

> Just wait untill the ones we owe that debt to - that which wasn't stolen
> from the social security trust (sic) - come a calling for it....

One of the reasons why the US government is devaluing the dollar. They'll
get their social security check, in the amount proportional to the salary
they once had.... Just good luck buying a loaf of bread with it.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article <JBi1i.28755$Ae.7028@trnddc07>, Jeff wrote:
>>
>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> In article .net>, C.
>>> E.
>>> White wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Vermont trial began shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in
>>>> an
>>>> unrelated case that carbon dioxide can be regulated as a pollutant,
>>>> rejecting a 2003 argument by the federal Environmental Protection
>>>> Agency
>>>> that it did not have authority over carbon dioxide.
>>>
>>> So, now the federal government through the EPA can regulate our
>>> breathing? ?
>>
>> No. However, the EPA does regulate the pollution that is put into the
>> atmosphere. For example, the EPA lowered the amount of sulfur oxides that
>> are allowed to go into the atmosphere, thereby decreasing acid rain.
>>
>> The EPA doesn't regulate your breathing. They do make it so you have
>> clean
>> air to breath, though.
>>
>> If you want to breath dirty air, take up smoking.
>
> Um... if the EPA is going to have the power to regulate CARBON DIOXIDE,
> then can they regulate breathing which emits CARBON DIOXIDE? Have to
> explain everything around here these days.

The EPA has the duty to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from inanimate
objects. However, it is not empowered to regulate breathing.

Besides, breathing doesn't create carbon dioxide. Breathing only rids the
blood of carbon dioxide made elsewhere in the body.

Jeff

"Brent P" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article <JBi1i.28755$Ae.7028@trnddc07>, Jeff wrote:
>>
>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> In article .net>, C.
>>> E.
>>> White wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Vermont trial began shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in
>>>> an
>>>> unrelated case that carbon dioxide can be regulated as a pollutant,
>>>> rejecting a 2003 argument by the federal Environmental Protection
>>>> Agency
>>>> that it did not have authority over carbon dioxide.
>>>
>>> So, now the federal government through the EPA can regulate our
>>> breathing? ?
>>
>> No. However, the EPA does regulate the pollution that is put into the
>> atmosphere. For example, the EPA lowered the amount of sulfur oxides that
>> are allowed to go into the atmosphere, thereby decreasing acid rain.
>>
>> The EPA doesn't regulate your breathing. They do make it so you have
>> clean
>> air to breath, though.
>>
>> If you want to breath dirty air, take up smoking.
>
> Um... if the EPA is going to have the power to regulate CARBON DIOXIDE,
> then can they regulate breathing which emits CARBON DIOXIDE? Have to
> explain everything around here these days.
>
>

And let's see how long it takes before they try to regulate breathing.
Lesser beings will only be allowed to breathe on alternate days. No Farting
allowed.

So most of the left will be turning blue soon. Not soon enough.

Charles of Schaumburg

Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), in a sure sign
that the Apocalypse is upon us, someone calling themself Brent P said
this in rec.autos.driving:
> In article et>, necromancer wrote:
>
> > Just wait untill the ones we owe that debt to - that which wasn't stolen
> > from the social security trust (sic) - come a calling for it....
>
> One of the reasons why the US government is devaluing the dollar. They'll
> get their social security check, in the amount proportional to the salary
> they once had.... Just good luck buying a loaf of bread with it.

Or a gallon of gas....

--
www.bushorchimp.com

Brent P wrote:
>
> In article .net>, C. E. White wrote:
>
> > The Vermont trial began shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in an
> > unrelated case that carbon dioxide can be regulated as a pollutant,
> > rejecting a 2003 argument by the federal Environmental Protection Agency
> > that it did not have authority over carbon dioxide.
>
> So, now the federal government through the EPA can regulate our
> breathing? ?

Yes. And tax it.
Just like the Romans used to tax urine.

In article <I3l1i.5129$3B5.754@trnddc08>, Jeff wrote:

> The EPA has the duty to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from inanimate
> objects. However, it is not empowered to regulate breathing.

Ahh... the old environmentalist rules, only CO2 produced by certain
activities in certain places is bad.... the global warming swindle in
action.

> Besides, breathing doesn't create carbon dioxide. Breathing only rids the
> blood of carbon dioxide made elsewhere in the body.

If you don't breath it doesn't come out of the body.