Comments on: EPA CO2 poposal is anti-life and anti-science http://www.powermag.com/blog/index.php/2009/04/19/epa-co2-poposal-is-anti-life-and-anti-science/ Business and Technology for the Global Generation Industry Sun, 5 Feb 2012 18:25:06 -0500 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Rebekkah Marshall http://www.powermag.com/blog/index.php/2009/04/19/epa-co2-poposal-is-anti-life-and-anti-science/comment-page-1/#comment-211 Rebekkah Marshall Thu, 28 May 2009 16:47:14 +0000 http://www.powermag.com/blog/index.php/2009/04/19/epa-co2-poposal-is-anti-life-and-anti-science/#comment-211 Hi Ken I'm just now getting to read your response. Indeed, most of my examples describe pollutants that are defined outside of the CAA. But Ozone (one of the "beneficial" pollutants cited above) is, in fact, classified as a criteria pollutant per the CAA. In any case, my only point here is that I think a precedent has already been set. Still, your ongoing projection of gridlock is the bottom line (and would be hard to refute). Hi Ken

I’m just now getting to read your response. Indeed, most of my examples describe pollutants that are defined outside of the CAA. But Ozone (one of the “beneficial” pollutants cited above) is, in fact, classified as a criteria pollutant per the CAA. In any case, my only point here is that I think a precedent has already been set. Still, your ongoing projection of gridlock is the bottom line (and would be hard to refute).

]]> By: Ken Maize http://www.powermag.com/blog/index.php/2009/04/19/epa-co2-poposal-is-anti-life-and-anti-science/comment-page-1/#comment-177 Ken Maize Sat, 09 May 2009 23:43:52 +0000 http://www.powermag.com/blog/index.php/2009/04/19/epa-co2-poposal-is-anti-life-and-anti-science/#comment-177 Rebekkah, Sure, anything is a "pollutant," in that it can cause harm That applies to oxygen and water vapor at high levels of concentration.. But the CAA defines "criteria" pollutants for regulation. And CO2 is not among them, the courts notwithstanding. If Congress wants to regulate CO2 (a truly stupid idea), it should do so legislatively, not through a strained interpretation by an activist Republican Supreme Court. Rebekkah,
Sure, anything is a “pollutant,” in that it can cause harm That applies to oxygen and water vapor at high levels of concentration..
But the CAA defines “criteria” pollutants for regulation. And CO2 is not among them, the courts notwithstanding.
If Congress wants to regulate CO2 (a truly stupid idea), it should do so legislatively, not through a strained interpretation by an activist Republican Supreme Court.

]]> By: Ken Maize http://www.powermag.com/blog/index.php/2009/04/19/epa-co2-poposal-is-anti-life-and-anti-science/comment-page-1/#comment-176 Ken Maize Sat, 09 May 2009 23:39:13 +0000 http://www.powermag.com/blog/index.php/2009/04/19/epa-co2-poposal-is-anti-life-and-anti-science/#comment-176 Rebekkah, Sure, anything is a "pollutant," in that it can cause harm That applies to oxygen and water vapor.. But the CAA defines "criteria" pollutants for regulation. And CO2 is not among them, the courts notwithstanding. Rebekkah,
Sure, anything is a “pollutant,” in that it can cause harm That applies to oxygen and water vapor..
But the CAA defines “criteria” pollutants for regulation. And CO2 is not among them, the courts notwithstanding.

]]>