Once again, and with little or no fanfare, the United States is on the verge of startling change. Fringe environmental groups, working with the Environmental Protection Agency are working to monitor the production of greenhouse gases.
I am sure right now, that many of you are saying "... and about time. The planet is in peril, animal species are dying all over the planet, and global warming is imminent." While current evidence belies these conclusions, I will not choose to debate that subject here and now. I will only point out that by this self-given mandate, the EPA will have a dramatic impact on the future.
But before I go on, a little history might be in order.
In 1999, environmental groups petitioned the EPA to take on the regulatory function of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, and it refused. Later in 2003, the EPA in fact declared that it had no authority to do so under the CAA, since it provided no mandatory authority to address global warming related emissions.
The environmental groups appealed to the DC District Court which agreed with the EPA decision, saying that the CAA allows regulation only when the "public health or welfare" is endangered. In April of 2007, the Supreme Court overturned this decision however saying that the EPA must, "ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute". Translated, this means that if the EPA thinks it should regulate something for the public good, then it should.
Now that we are all caught up, let me finally let you in on the dirty little secret that I have been avoiding. What we are talking about here is the regulation CARBON DIOXIDE. Yes, the innocuous gas that plants convert to oxygen has now fallen under the regulatory powers of the Environmental Protection Agency. The agency has since issued what it calls an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule-making (ANPR) that will say the following:
- Lawnmowers will need standards of exhaust based on the size of the lawn mowed (Grass Mileage)
- Permits would be required for the construction of new sources of pollution (You know, businesses).
- Speed limiters would be installed on over-the-road trucks to reduce their output (though we would assume that Public Transportation like buses or trains would be exempt from such regulation).
- Small businesses and even single-family homes could and would be considered polluters, as they would exceed government mandated outputs.
People who never ran for office and who will answer to little or no one will decide almost every aspect of our lives in the name of protecting us from a substance produced by the planet itself. The EPA will gain a vitual stranglehold on everything from new home construction, to the use of machinery on farms, to an almost complete control of the growth of the economy itself.
Of course there is another source of carbon dioxide that I haven't mentioned yet, it's you and me. Every time that we expel a breath, we contribute to the pollution of the planet, as defined by them, by producing CO2 (I am not counting the other gases potentially expelled. That's for another posting.)
How long do we need to wait before the act of breathing becomes a regulated function? How long before having a child requires a permit, since it would add another source of pollution production? (Beats the hell out rug rat for a nickname) How long before the government sets a "carbon footprint" tax for everyday existence?
Sound far-fetched? Well if it does, you don't remember when catalytic converters were mandated, or when mileage standards for automobiles were created. I don't know about you, but I'm ready to take up the torches and pitchforks before they outlaw the torches (or speech for that matter) as a source of pollution!
4 comments:
Tim,
I for one am adamantly in favor of greenhouse gasses, but let me explain.
Carbon dioxide promotes the growth of healthy plants which give off oxygen as a byproduct.
I'm kinda fond of oxygen and use it myself, almost every day, in fact.
So, the way that I see it regulating carbon dioxide is limiting oxygen, so your contention of regulating breathing as well as human reproductivity is the gubment's ultimate goal.
Ordinarily, giving the gubment control over anything means mismanagement bordering on extinction, which itself is a self correcting solution, although not one that I would voluntarily choose.
;-)
HT,
I too am a fan of greenhouse gases, almost as much as I am against government regulation of anything. I also agree with you on the result of such government control. I wouldn't put it past our short-sighted politicians to do such a thing, but as I point out, they don't have to.
No, this will happen (is happening) with the stroke of a bureaucrat's pen. We may well have been launched down the path of final extinction by a bunch of liberal special interest groups and a power hungry bureaucracy with a mandate.
Let's all plant more flowers and plants and trees and gardens.
I love my garden and my compost pile in my spanking brand new (almost) compost bin and it gives off some very aromatic gasses --- or maybe that was the beans I ate.
Roland,
I certainly have no problem planting more of anything, and will gladly turn my apartment into a jungle if it gets the EPA out of the situation. Setting aside the nightmare of the cost of the bureaucracy involved to enforce all of this nonsense, and that no one will be regulating the regulators; no one has proved to me that such regulation will actually make a difference.
Besides, with the government's success rate in such endeavors, I fear for the very planet.
Post a Comment