EPA Blasted for Being Responsible


ECOstrive – After delivering a report to lawmakers last Thursday stating that it will not be rushed into deciding whether to regulate Carbon Dioxide (CO2) as a pollutant related to Global Warming, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was blasted by Rep. Edward Markey, D-MA and Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-CA for not immediately taking action on last year’s Supreme Court ruling ordering that SaveCO2 be regulated by the agency.

Stephen Johnson from the EPA states that such action “could affect many (emission) sources beyond just cars and trucks” and needs to be examined broadly as to other impacts. Sen. Boxer noted that Johnson has had nearly a year to respond to the court but “now, instead of action, we get more foot-dragging” and Rep. Markey said “This is the latest quack from a lame-duck EPA intent on running out the clock … without doing a thing to combat global warming.” They are wrong…

I applaud the EPA for carefully considering the impacts of regulating CO2 as a “pollutant” as it will have impacts on everything that emits CO2, including animals and humans. ECOstrive published a tongue-in-cheek article last year entitled “EPA to Regulate Breathing” that was meant to poke fun at the absurdity of the “pollutant” classification for CO2. Yet, the fanatics want to rush and create penalties that would not be enforceable in any court.

Perhaps the fanatics don’t understand that regulation, when enacted, must be clear, fair and be unambiguous in order to be enforceable. Setting a penalty for CO2 emissions without making it clear, would put the farmer raising cattle at risk of the same penalty as a large coal plant.

While I do not agree with the Supreme Court legislating from the bench, if the EPA must regulate CO2, they must be very diligent in their analysis and clearly state what is excluded from regulation (my sigh of disgust, for example). We need to get real and stop jumping at the whim of radicalism, as it is a very dangerous road to attempt to modify the climate when we don’t understand it fully in the first place. Of course, that is just my opinion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *