The EPA wants to regulate car’s carbon dioxide emissions, a very bad idea. From Eric Peters on a guest post at theburningplatform.com:
Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you probably have heard something about Dieselgate – the VW exhaust emissions “cheating” scandal (in quotes for the same reason I’d air quote using a radar detector to “cheat” a speed trap).
But you probably don’t know about the real “emissions scandal.”
That would be the lame duck Obama EPA’s decision – its peremptory fatwa – to categorize carbon dioxide as a “pollutant” subject to federal regulation. It did so post-election, more than a year before the deadline (April, 2018) it had established, prior to which there was supposed to have been “public comment.” The hurry-up no doubt due to the fact that Obama’s intended successor – a “climate change” high priestess, did not win the election.
“The April 28 (2018) deadline was ‘no later than’ set forth in the 2012 rule,” warbled Obama’s soon-to-be-not acting assistant administrator for the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation.” Rather than risk a “denier” (Trump) not imposing this fatwa – based on the fact that he was elected to not issue such fatwas – the Obama politburo simply decided to decide.
Whatever happened to “democracy”?
Apparently, when the voters express wishes contrary to those of the ruling cabal, then minority rule muss sein. They Know Best – and are going to make sure we know it. And, abide by it.
Well, this business is bad business, for two very big reasons:
First, it’s new. Historically – since the 1970s – the EPA only regulated reactive exhaust emissions; things like unburned hydrocarbons/volatile organic compounds and so on that had tangible (provable) negative effects on air quality or people’s health. Exhaust byproducts that caused or worsened smog, or created acid rain or made it harder for people with respiratory problems to breathe.
These were not hypothetical problems. Smog was a real problem.
But Obama’s fatwa deals with carbon dioxide, which is non-reactive and has absolutely nothing to do with smog formation or acid rain; which does not in any way contribute to or cause breathing problems.
It causes the opposite, in fact.
To continue reading: The Impossible Standard . . . a Year Early