Slashdot Mirror
Two Powerful Blows Against Air Pollution Controls
The NYTimes reports from Washington on two separate actions on Friday that, between them, have halted Bush administration clean-air initiatives in their tracks. The current administration is no favorite of environmental groups, but these groups sided with the administration in a court case brought by the utility companies. On Friday an appeals court threw out the EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule, established in 2005. The court ruled that the EPA had exceeded its authority when it established that rule, which set new requirements for major pollutants. According to the article, even the utilities were appalled to see the rule completely gutted; their objections had been narrower. Here is a podcast with the reporter (MP3) giving some background on the ruling. The second major blow to clean-air efforts came later in the day on Friday. Quoting: "...the EPA chief rejected any obligation to regulate heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide under existing law, saying that to do so would involve an 'unprecedented expansion' of the agency's authority that would have 'a profound effect on virtually every sector of the economy,' touching 'every household in the land.'... In effect, Mr. Johnson was simultaneously publishing the policy analysis of his scientific and legal experts and repudiating its conclusions."
If I get it right, the EPA is allowed to be given authority to do things as long as they have no real effect? Of course the EPA is going to have a profound effect on every sector of the economy. If you curtail CO2 emissions you are basically affecting every step of production delivery and consumption of most goods. That is, after all, the gravity of the situation.
Try turning it around...
If the CIA wants its spies to freely monitor as many communications of terrorists as possible, then of course its method of eavesdropping going to have a profound impact on the private communications of most US citizens.
That is, after all, the gravity of the situation. (Whatever that's supposed to mean...)
Here's the announcement:
(Washington, D.C. - July 11, 2008) Today EPA released an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) soliciting public input on the effects of climate change and the potential ramifications of the Clean Air Act in relation to greenhouse gas emissions.
And here is the transcript of Johnson's conference call on the release.
Finally, here is the (588 page PDF) document itself.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
To be fair, the EPA is a pretty powerful outfit that has had a significant effect on industry and environment ... whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant. They are not just a band-aid group.
I work in the petroleum industry, and I'll tell you this: companies that run pipelines and tank farms are generally far more concerned with state Environment agencies. They're a lot tougher than the Feds in many areas.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I had my accountant do the math...
Since Hummers were classifed as light trucks in 2003 by the Bush administration, I could get a write off for my business far in excess of what I could get for a car. Having one would have saved about $12k in taxes the first 2 years I owned it.
Of course, the additional amount I would have paid in gas would have offset that figure considerably. How much, I don't know, I bike wherever I can.
M
Not so fast. Mexico has no environmental controls of any consequence, and the effluent from their power production and manufacturing plants does affect us. Try living downwind from a Mexican power plant.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
What about the first power granted to Congress?
Article I, Section 8
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
How does the regulation of the environment not fall under "general welfare" of the United States?
Of course it affects us but I am sure giving industry enough money they can find a solution to the problem. Say like building a new city and moving everyone there. That should give a good kick to the ecomomy, building all those new houses and infrastructure.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
"This Administration" is not part of the court that blocked these new regulations.
The Gospel according to lolcat
Partially true. Halliburton's primary headquarters is located Huston, they recently opened a secondary headquarters in Dubai. This makes sense since they have several business interest there. They also have offices in Anchorage, Denver, and a number of other cities scattered through the USA.
The Gospel according to lolcat
A bicycle isn't a complete solution. I shouldn't have to explain that either. I'm extremely happy for the people who can use that route and wish I could do it myself but in my current circumstances it's just not going to happen. I'll be happy for the day I can arrange for it though.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Common anti-environmentalist talking point, and pretty much completely made up. A single unsubstantiated claim by some reporter in the '70s was dug up and seized on as ``the opinion of every climate scientist at the time''.
A straw man, nothing more.
.
You do know what write-off means, right? It means you can claim the expense as a business expense, so you purchase it with pre-tax dollars. It's not like you get it free, or get a dollar for dollar tax credit; at best, you maybe save 35%, tops (if a corporation; if an LLC or sole-prop then you probably saved 15-20%).
And of course you could only write off what you actually SPENT in that year on the vehicle, meaning if you made payments for 5 years, you still had a 5 year payment plan. It was only if you bought it in one year could you deduct the expense in one lump sum.
Seems to me to be a much better way to do things - if a business pays $100,000 for business equipment, I'm all for them being able to claim the entire $100,000 amount as an expense in one year (decreasing their net income), rather than forcing them to spread the expense out over 5 or 7 tax years.
If that's forcing people to buy a Hummer, I'd like to meet those people. They still had to have the $100,000 up front to purchase it...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Don't kid yourself. This administration has encouraged waste and has laughed at pollution controls. A classic example was the recent statement by Bush at the G8 meeting in Japan.
"Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter" --Pres. George W. Bush
I am not making this up. The dickhead really said this.
Cheney has censored climate change reports and Bush has pressured the EPA to not regulate greenhouse gases. This administration isn't just ignoring the issue of climate change. It is actively working against it. I think this administration thinks that the only way to salvage the economy after its disastrous policies is to put the US economy on an equal footing with the Chinese. And the only way he thinks that he can do that is to have the same pollution controls as the Chinese.
I had to look it up too: Brazil Russia India China
.
Cause and effect.
Here's what we know (for sure) about global warming:
Increases in atmospheric CO2 cause warming.
Man has been increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The Earth has been warming.
Here is something else we know about global warming.
Sun cycles cause Global Warming and cooling.
In past cycles, the CO2 in the atmosphere was at elevated levels. The elevated levels were due to warmer oceans releasing CO2 as they warm. (CO2 levels followed heating, not led it)
Our Global Warming cycle is the same as the Global Warmming cycle on Mars.
My theory is our greenhouse gasses are not responsible for the warming on Mars, but I have no way to prove it one way or another. I also believe that what ever is causing the Mars global warming is also impacting our global warming to a great degree. I believe most of our warming is from the Sun a known common source of heat for both planets.
What is not known is how much influence we really have on Global Warming. Our impact may be the same as holding a lit lighter in a room and blaming it for the recent rise in room temprature even though it is July. In January, let me know if the lit lighter overheated the room.
Personally I think walking causes air movement (called wind) and hurricanes are the result of too much wind, therefore I should stay seated and type on Slashdot lest I destroy New Orleans agan.
The truth shall set you free!
But.... that's not even what the magazine article states. Some quotes from those pages: "Toward an uncertain future", "Warmer? Colder?", "Could another ice age thus ensue?", "...but experts agree on one point: They cannot yet predict climatic change with any assurance.", "we are living in one of the warmest periods of the past million years".
What kind of a citation is that?
The parent is so far off base it's not even funny. Just take a look at the website the photo of the National Geographic Magazine was located at. (here's the page for the November, 1976 edition). Here's a summary of the website by the way:
Perfect is the enemy of done.
To be fair he won it for raising awareness, not for proving it.
America, Home of the Brave.
You can read about the history of the 1970s global cooling scare on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
Here's Newsweek talking about its own coverage of the issue, and quoting William Connolley (whose website you linked above):
From http://www.newsweek.com/id/72481
And finally here's Connolley himself:
From http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/
Changes in the sun are not responsible for the majority of the observed global warming. They're just too small.
Solar forcing (11 year solar flare cycle, increase in brightness etc) is already accounted for in current climate modeling - the 2007 IPCC report put the maximum effect of solar increases at 20%, lower than previous years. Volcanism is even lower.
Solar forcing was responsible for a lot of warming in the pre-industrial age, and the science is still being looked into for other mechanisms - but at this point, at this time, man-emitted greenhouse gases are the only candidate for the vast majority of the increase in temperature. CO2 and methane from industry, fossil fuels and agriculture are having a big impact on the global climate.
What the exact impacts will be, and what we can do to mitigate them is a hot topic, but that man is responsible for the sudden and sharp increase in overal global temperature since the industrial age? That's no longer in serious dispute.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
The point is that by upping the max to $100K, lots of doctors and lawyers went out and bought Hummers on the tax payers' dime.
There's a big difference between "tax free" and "on the tax payers' dime". If I pay you under the table for work, then we've cheated the system in that you didn't pay as much in taxes as you owed, but we didn't actively take money out of the system. I'm not defending the situation - I think it's ridiculous - but you're wrong on this part.
BTW, my wife's a doctor and our family cars are a 2003 minivan and an Oldsmobile. This fat-cat doctor meme needs to die as the unjustified expression of class envy that it is.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I actually don't know much about the DC Circuit, but judging (pun intended) from your comments, neither do you. Appointments aren't willy-nilly with each new administration. You appoint one when someone retires or expires or advances, for the most part. There are 3 (soon-to-be 4?) GW Bush appointees on the court.
And I didn't bother to read through it, but this may be of some value to people, if a bit dry: http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/bin/opinions/allopinions.asp.
* Sentelle - Reagan appointee
* Ginsburbg - Reagan
* LeCraft Henderson - Original Bush
* Randolph - Original Bush
* Rogers - Clinton
* Tatelle - Clinton
* Garland - Clinton
* Rogers Brown - New Bush
* Griffith - New Bush
* Cavanaugh - New Bush
* Edwards - Carter (!)
* Silberman - Reagan
* Williams - Reagan
Please don't use "umm" or "err" or "erm".
Actually the Bush administtation DID give a tax break on large vehicles to make them more affordable than their actual impact on the world:
"Congress recently passed a tax bill, as proposed in President Bush's economic stimulus plan, that offers a $100,000 tax credit for business owners who purchase any vehicle weighing 6,000 pounds or more when fully loaded.
When Wizinsky's accountant told him about the credit last year, the amount was much less, at $75,000, but it was enough to encourage Wizinsky to trade in his Mercury Marquis for the Excursion.
"It sounded too good to be true," said Wizinsky, a health care consultant in Novi, Mich. "But it was true. So I bought the SUV. For a small company like mine it's a significant credit."
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Hybrid/story?id=97505
http://www.thegreenguide.com/doc/int/hummer
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2002-12-18-suv-tax-break_x.htm
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
Actually, this jump in tax write off caused me and my dad to spent a bunch on money on capital improvements on our family farms. (About 600 acres total). If we had been limited to the $25k per year write off, it would not have been attractive to my old man. He may have lived long enough to see the write off, or maybe not. He's to that age where if the ROI doesn't come back in some form or fashion in
Including spending about $80k on grain storage bins, 40x90 steel building to store our tractor and equipment (small tractor as we rent the farm to proper farmers, but we keep a small utility tractor mainly because my Dad is retired and the farms is his play toy. But we do use the tractor to spray for weed control along the farm roads, use the dirt scoop to even out the high and low spots, etc..)
The jump in the write off made it much more attractive to do. Especially since the old man can basically keep all the farm income shielded from taxes for a couple more years. Doesn't sound like much, but it keeps him in a lower tax bracket and that saves several thousand dollars a years.
But, in the mean time, the contractors who put up the buildings made money, the companies who made the steel buildings got sales, which kept their employees hired and paid.
We are about to go back into the watermelon business next year. One of the items on the list to buy is a pickup truck so we can haul small loads of watermelons (1 or 2 pallets) from the wearhouse we're building in the city so if an outlet is running low, we can run a fresh shipment out that day. It's not a bad summer time job while I'm in grad school, probably clear $35 - 40k.
We have a 10 year old Astro Van that could probably manage towing the trailer without a lot of problems, but we're waiting. We figure come december or January (depending if we need the write off this year), dealerships will be cutting hell of a deal on new/used pickups. (probably we'll be looking at used trucks for someone wanting to get rid of theirs at a firesale price.)
Now I'm not saying there aren't business owners out there who say, "Hey I can write this $100k off and buy a big shiny tow that says 'look at me'." There are. A lot of business owners can be arrogant as hell. Generally it's Type A's that start businesses.
But we aren't the only ones. I know a lot of small business owners who took advantage of the new tax laws to buy new equipment that otherwise they may not have purchased. Some expanded into new areas and when they did, generally had to hire an extra person or two to keep up.
People love to point at the flashy business owner (trust me, at lot of these people don't remain in business that long if they are spending $100k on flashy toy that has no practical application what so ever) and then snicker. Mostly out of jealously it seems. Which, if you made $100k and want to buy a hummer, more power to you, uut for everyone of them, there are a lot more successful business owners who go out, use the tax advantage to exactly what it was designed for: buy equipment, expand their business, and continue to add value to the economy.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
The Bush Administration? That was mainly the work of Carl Levin, a Democrat senator from Michigan.
Our Global Warming cycle is the same as the Global Warmming cycle on Mars.
My theory is our greenhouse gasses are not responsible for the warming on Mars, but I have no way to prove it one way or another. I also believe that what ever is causing the Mars global warming is also impacting our global warming to a great degree.
The Mars myth was debunked a long time ago...
Damn those bushies, for classifying a hummer as a light truck! It's clearly a, uh, sedan?
It isn't so much about the classification as it is about the application (with apologies to Jessee Jackson on that one). The point that many people have been trying to make is that the business tax laws don't make sense with regards to business vehicles.
For example, if you are a business owner who could just as well drive around in a sedan, why would you buy a truck? You probably wouldn't, until you talk to your accountant and find out that you get a huge tax rebate by buying the truck instead.
The result is we have florists and IT guys driving around in Hummers because it ends up being cheaper to purchase an H2 than a more reasonable sedan.
KARL-ROVE-FROM-BEYOND-THE-GRAVE
I think Mr. Rove would be surprised to hear that he is dead. While plenty of non-conservatives would place Rove as evil, few would place him as dead. Even wikipedia seems to believe he is currently alive.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Well, for starters, looked at the number of papers published on each topic. Or the number of scientists who believe anthropogenic GW is happening. Or the IPCC report. I'm sure I could go on.
Honestly, if you can't tell the difference, you aren't trying hard enough.