Still Choking On The Fog Of Bushco

It really takes your breath away (sorry – too easy) to consider how extreme our ruling cabal is acting towards the state of California in its effort to enact vehicle mileage standards that are tougher than those under federal law (they’re seeking a waiver of that law) in an effort to curb carbon dioxide emissions responsible for global warming.

This McClatchy story tells us…

EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson said in December when he rejected California's request that since the effects of global warming weren't confined to the state, its release from the less stringent Clean Air Act requirements wasn't appropriate. He said that toughened vehicle-mileage standards enacted last year would achieve similar results.

But documents obtained by congressional investigators have revealed disagreements within the agency over the waiver, with professional staff members saying that California had a legitimate claim and the EPA probably would lose a lawsuit filed by the state if the waiver were denied.

In congressional hearings, Johnson has testified that he alone made the decision. But Boxer said the new documents showed that Johnson went to the White House last May 1 with briefing papers supporting California's position.

"A funny thing happened on the way to the White House," she said.

I’m not going to waste anyone’s time debating whether or not Johnson acted in accordance with the White House. Why would he not (and by the way, Babs, anything happening with that Senate Ethics Committee? How about this?).

And as this related article in Time tells us…

The California initiative, part of the state's landmark climate change plan, could have provided a nationwide model for cutting automobile emissions, one of the single biggest sources of greenhouse gas in the U.S. "The Administration has done a number of indefensible things on the environment and global warming," says Jim Marston, director of the state climate initiative for Environmental Defense. "But this is the worst in terms of process, and the one that will be most harmful to the health and safety of the American people."

And to really give you an idea of how unserious Dubya and company are on this most pivotal of issues, this White House link (a 2001 letter from Dubya to his Senate playmates Chuck Hagel, Jesse Helms, Pat Roberts and Larry “Wide Stance” himself) tells us…

…I intend to work with the Congress on a multipollutant strategy to require power plants to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury. Any such strategy would include phasing in reductions over a reasonable period of time, providing regulatory certainty, and offering market-based incentives to help industry meet the targets. I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a "pollutant" under the Clean Air Act.

Only because one of your flunkies says so; as this August 2003 Common Dreams article tells us…

Carbon dioxide, the chief cause of global warming, cannot be regulated as a pollutant, the Environmental Protection Agency ruled Thursday.

The decision reverses a 1998 Clinton administration position. It means that the Bush administration won't be able to use the Clean Air Act to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from cars.

Had the Bush administration decided that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and harmful, it could have required expensive new pollution controls on new cars and perhaps on power plants, which together are the main sources of so-called greenhouse gases.

And again, what does it tell you of the intentions of Bushco that Dubya is saying carbon dioxide isn't a pollutant in 2001 before his EPA stooge concurred in that phony assessment two years later?

And I have to point out (grudgingly) that when it comes to this matter, Bushco’s legendary message control is still in place; I looked across the EPA’s web site and could find no mention whatsoever of carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

And from a “Kids Link” from the EPA page, I found this…

Sometimes little things can turn into big things. Think about brushing your teeth. If you don't brush for one day, chances are nothing bad will happen. But if you don't brush your teeth for one month, you may develop a cavity. It's the same thing with global temperatures. If temperatures rise above normal levels for a few days, it's no big deal – the Earth will stay more or less the same. But if temperatures continue to rise over a longer period of time, then the Earth may experience some problems.

The Gulf of Mexico was about 2 degrees warmer than usual on August 29, 2005 during the peak of Hurricane Katrina’s intensity, as noted here, which was hardly “no big deal.”

But this is just another chapter in the war against our planet waged primarily by Incurious George and the Republican Party (and an earlier related post appears here).