White House Refused To Open Unwelcome EPA E-Mail

epfreed writes "The White House lost a case in the Supreme Court about the need for the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. So the EPA made new rule. And now the NYTimes reports that the White House did not want to get these new rules from the EPA about greenhouse gases. So they did not open the email."

Comments

Re:The WH's boss is still we the people you know

[diamondmagic]

If you are so sure the congress can't pass good laws, what makes you so confident in the supreme court, them taking their invisible pen to write new laws that clearly do not exist in any bill or the US Constitution.

It is the job of the courts to interpret laws, not write in what they think should be there. It is the job of Congress alone to regulate. I'll say this again: It is the job of congress to create the "living document" that people call it, not the courts.

They're fine with destroying the earth as long as they can save $0.20 a gallon on gas for the next year.

There are certain things that should not be up for vote by the people, and the environment is probably at the top of that list.

I completely agree with your first two points, but I have to call you on this one: It wouldn't be "destroying the Earth," at least not nearly as much we are destroying it some other ways, there is plenty of land that wouldn't be touched. The estimate I heard was less then 1%. If you are afraid we might go over that number, you can sell the rights to only portions to ensure this. If you environmentalists are still afraid, buy the land yourself and protect it, there is no problem with that.
Another thing that should not be up to the people to vote for is money: In any democracy, you are going to succeed until the voters realize they can vote themselves "free" money. Guess what, that money isn't free, it comes out of the tax payers pocket. If you print it, the value is deflated, and the working class that is the last to receive the new money is hurt greatly. Either way it is lose-lose.

Re:The WH's boss is still we the people you know

[0111 1110]

Actually I don't make too many assumptions about what environmentalists are thinking. If they don't want to seem stupid then maybe they should stop saying dumb things like "we are going to destroy the earth". There is little evidence to support the idea that a warmer planet would be the end of the human species. I think a world government enforced ban on combustion would be more likely to destroy our species. If they can advocate a return to pre-industrial civilization along with a police state to enforce it all, it's pretty hard to guess what is going on their heads. Now you might claim that no one is advocating that, but to me that just makes it worse, because other than most of the world moving to nuclear for all electricity generation and going electric with all transportation, there is not much else that can really be done to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. To fix the problem it would be necessary to significantly reduce or eliminate combustion products of all kinds. That's not just going back to the middle ages. That's going back to the pre-history before even fire was invented. Is having hundreds of thousands of nuclear plants all running at full capacity to supply the constantly increasing energy needs of the world a safer world than one with a growing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Maybe it is. But it really depends on stuff we don't know yet. I would welcome nuclear plants in every neighborhood. Why don't the environmentalists typically agree? Another reason why I can't figure them out. If they really want a solution to the problem they should be the biggest nuclear power advocates out there and would even be willing to live near nuclear waste disposal sites. After all the alternative is Armegeddon, right?