EPA Head declares rules are about "investment". Not pollution control.

[westwall]

Yep, you heard it here. Investment and I wonder who gets all that money?


"(CNSNews.com) - EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told Congress on Wednesday that the EPA's sweeping carbon-regulation plan "really is an investment opportunity. This is not about pollution control."

Spouting warnings about "climate change" ("The science is clear. The risks are clear...We must act."), McCarthy described and defended the EPA's plan to reduce pollution from existing power plants by setting various carbon-reduction goals for each state to meet by the year 2030."


EPA Chief: 'This Is Not About Pollution Control...It's an Investment Strategy' | CNS News

 

[waltky]

Uncle Ferd says dat's what the fat lady down the street said happened to her...

Can Air Pollution Make You Fat?
February 22nd, 2016 - When thinking about the impact of air pollution on human health; respiratory and cardiovascular issues would probably be among the first to come to mind.

But now a new study conducted by an international team of researchers is suggesting that laboratory rats who were exposed to the highly polluted air of Beijing, for three to eight weeks, also gained weight along with having cardio-respiratory problems. To reach their findings, the research team put pregnant rats, along with their young, in two compartments. One was open to the outdoor air of Beijing and the other included an air filter that removed most of the air pollution. Both sets of rats were fed the same diet throughout the experiments.

The researchers found that the pregnant rats who breathed the polluted air after only 19 days had heavier lungs and livers along with increased tissue inflammation. “Since chronic inflammation is recognized as a factor contributing to obesity and since metabolic diseases such as diabetes and obesity are closely related, our findings provide clear evidence that chronic exposure to air pollution increases the risk for developing obesity,” said the study’s senior author Junfeng “Jim” Zhang, of Duke University in Nashville, TN in a press release.

Air pollution and haze masks view of Forbidden City from the top of Jinshan​

Compared to those who breathed filtered air, the researchers also found that the air pollution breathing rats also had 50 percent higher levels of LDL (bad) cholesterol; 46 percent higher triglycerides; 97 percent higher total cholesterol and a higher level of insulin resistance. Having a high insulin resistance level can set the stage for Type 2 diabetes. The research team said that the baby rats displayed comparable results to their mothers, who lived under identical conditions in the same compartments.

For example, an eight week old female rat exposed to air pollution was 10% heavier and a male 18% heavier than those who breathed filtered air. Since the researchers found that the detrimental effects of air pollution was more noticeable at eight weeks than at three weeks, the study suggests longstanding exposure to high levels of air pollution may be essential to produce the kinds of physiological changes that lead to obesity. “If translated and verified in humans, these findings will support the urgent need to reduce air pollution, given the growing burden of obesity in today’s highly polluted world,” said Zhang.

Can Air Pollution Make You Fat? « Science World

 

[Crick]

Yep, you heard it here. Investment and I wonder who gets all that money?


"(CNSNews.com) - EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told Congress on Wednesday that the EPA's sweeping carbon-regulation plan "really is an investment opportunity. This is not about pollution control."

Spouting warnings about "climate change" ("The science is clear. The risks are clear...We must act."), McCarthy described and defended the EPA's plan to reduce pollution from existing power plants by setting various carbon-reduction goals for each state to meet by the year 2030."


EPA Chief: 'This Is Not About Pollution Control...It's an Investment Strategy' | CNS News

"rules are about investment, not pollution control"

"This is not about pollution control"

"defended the EPA's plan to reduce pollution"

 

[Billy_Bob]

Yep, you heard it here. Investment and I wonder who gets all that money?


"(CNSNews.com) - EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told Congress on Wednesday that the EPA's sweeping carbon-regulation plan "really is an investment opportunity. This is not about pollution control."

Spouting warnings about "climate change" ("The science is clear. The risks are clear...We must act."), McCarthy described and defended the EPA's plan to reduce pollution from existing power plants by setting various carbon-reduction goals for each state to meet by the year 2030."


EPA Chief: 'This Is Not About Pollution Control...It's an Investment Strategy' | CNS News

One more lib placing the CAGW meme at arms length while telling us we still need to destroy ourselves...

McCarthy is a certifiable lunatic with no basis in realty.. I will be so glad to remove that piece of trash in 11 months and throw it to the curb..

 

[flacaltenn]

Yep, you heard it here. Investment and I wonder who gets all that money?


"(CNSNews.com) - EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told Congress on Wednesday that the EPA's sweeping carbon-regulation plan "really is an investment opportunity. This is not about pollution control."

Spouting warnings about "climate change" ("The science is clear. The risks are clear...We must act."), McCarthy described and defended the EPA's plan to reduce pollution from existing power plants by setting various carbon-reduction goals for each state to meet by the year 2030."


EPA Chief: 'This Is Not About Pollution Control...It's an Investment Strategy' | CNS News

I'm confused.. Is this about pollution or climate change? And if it's about investment -- can I invest in stuff that works? Or only stuff we HOPE will work?

And if you set goals for carbon reduction by 2030 and folks start dying in power outages in 2020 -- will that be part of the metrics of success?

 

[flacaltenn]

Asked to explain what consumers can expect from the new rule, McCarthy said EPA expects people to see lower energy bills "because we're getting waste out of the system." In other words, if electricity costs more, people will use less of it.

OR -- using less and STILL paying more. These warriors have been pushing conservation for 3 decades now. How much is left to NegaWatt??

And I guess the huge leap forward to ELECTRIC cars will HELP with this NEGAWATT campaign????

 

[skookerasbil]

Im laughing.........and meanwhile, we have about 5 or 6 dumbasses in here who really do believe the EPA exists for the environment!! And funnier.........these people are not kids. You'd expect this kind of naïve with 20-somethings. The lack of understanding about how the world works..........its astounding.

 

[Old Rocks]

And in the meantime, the GOP is trying to arrange to sell off all Forest Service and BLM land to the very rich so they can become even richer by controlling the geothermal, wind, and solar assets on those lands. Real nice plan, and with billions in assets, the oil corporations will just change their form of energy with which they will control. And, of course, they will make money from the sale of land use permits, hunting, fishing, and grazing. The latter will result in them owning the ranches presently owned by family ranchers. And we all will pay far more for beef.

Yes, much of what is going on in environment is about investment. And who gets pieces of the pie. or who get the whole pie. The GOP is pushing for the corporations getting the whole pie. And those using the Marlboro Man type political campaign are the stooges for this theft from the people of the US.

 

[Billy_Bob]

And in the meantime, the GOP is trying to arrange to sell off all Forest Service and BLM land to the very rich so they can become even richer by controlling the geothermal, wind, and solar assets on those lands. Real nice plan, and with billions in assets, the oil corporations will just change their form of energy with which they will control. And, of course, they will make money from the sale of land use permits, hunting, fishing, and grazing. The latter will result in them owning the ranches presently owned by family ranchers. And we all will pay far more for beef.

Yes, much of what is going on in environment is about investment. And who gets pieces of the pie. or who get the whole pie. The GOP is pushing for the corporations getting the whole pie. And those using the Marlboro Man type political campaign are the stooges for this theft from the people of the US.

No you idiot..

Were returning the ;land to the states WHO OWN IT!

One of those Constitutional things you all hate.. because it doesn't allow you to play GOD and control everything and every one..

 

[jc456]

And in the meantime, the GOP is trying to arrange to sell off all Forest Service and BLM land to the very rich so they can become even richer by controlling the geothermal, wind, and solar assets on those lands. Real nice plan, and with billions in assets, the oil corporations will just change their form of energy with which they will control. And, of course, they will make money from the sale of land use permits, hunting, fishing, and grazing. The latter will result in them owning the ranches presently owned by family ranchers. And we all will pay far more for beef.

Yes, much of what is going on in environment is about investment. And who gets pieces of the pie. or who get the whole pie. The GOP is pushing for the corporations getting the whole pie. And those using the Marlboro Man type political campaign are the stooges for this theft from the people of the US.

so who is supposed to get the money? Please enlighten me as to who is entitled to the cash if not those invested in it?

 

[mamooth]

Were returning the ;land to the states WHO OWN IT!

The states never owned it, and only the most dishonest cult fruitcakes try to make such an insane claim.

As far as the Constitution goes, it specifically says the feds can own land.

Article IV, Section 3 (The Property Clause)

"The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States;"

Despite the fringe-conservative cottage industry dedicated to proving those words mean the opposite of what they actually say, they still mean what they actually say.

 

[flacaltenn]

And in the meantime, the GOP is trying to arrange to sell off all Forest Service and BLM land to the very rich so they can become even richer by controlling the geothermal, wind, and solar assets on those lands. Real nice plan, and with billions in assets, the oil corporations will just change their form of energy with which they will control. And, of course, they will make money from the sale of land use permits, hunting, fishing, and grazing. The latter will result in them owning the ranches presently owned by family ranchers. And we all will pay far more for beef.

Yes, much of what is going on in environment is about investment. And who gets pieces of the pie. or who get the whole pie. The GOP is pushing for the corporations getting the whole pie. And those using the Marlboro Man type political campaign are the stooges for this theft from the people of the US.

You know -- you did the impossible there. Not that it's about THIS topic. But you actually found a VALUE for the lands that BLM holds.. Because BLM HAS those lands -- because virtually no one wants them in the 1st place. Not even the Forestry Service. And even with that astute observation -- the solar, wind, and geothermal value of these lands would be dubious because of BLM current regulations..

Not to mention the viability of putting a solar/wind farm on a mountain and running heavy transmission and substations. Or YOUR screams about bringing in a dirty mining operation to extract thermal power..

 

[flacaltenn]

So can anyone explain the "plan" for reducing carbon emissions from electrical generation and at the same time --- subsidizing and promoting electric vehicles?? I really can't understand a thought that the damned minion at EPA mutters..

I also have a hard time understanding the mutterings of THESE guys below. But THEY are hysterically funny...

Gina McCarthy and the Mindless Minions at EPA

 

[Billy_Bob]

Were returning the ;land to the states WHO OWN IT!

The states never owned it, and only the most dishonest cult fruitcakes try to make such an insane claim.

As far as the Constitution goes, it specifically says the feds can own land.

Article IV, Section 3 (The Property Clause)

"The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States;"

Despite the fringe-conservative cottage industry dedicated to proving those words mean the opposite of what they actually say, they still mean what they actually say.

The district of Columbia is the ONLY thing the Constitution states the fed has the right to own. All other lands are the property of the states in which they are. The fed may lease lands from the states but they can not own it.

BLM stand for Bureau of Land Management. IT was created to allow someone to keep law and order. The states can now do this for themselves, all of them. The BLM is a thing which needs to be of the past as is the forest service and many other bureaucratic organizations the states should be handling.

Now if the fed wants to advise the states on handling of their lands that's ok but they should never have control of it..

 

[bripat9643]

Yep, you heard it here. Investment and I wonder who gets all that money?


"(CNSNews.com) - EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told Congress on Wednesday that the EPA's sweeping carbon-regulation plan "really is an investment opportunity. This is not about pollution control."

Spouting warnings about "climate change" ("The science is clear. The risks are clear...We must act."), McCarthy described and defended the EPA's plan to reduce pollution from existing power plants by setting various carbon-reduction goals for each state to meet by the year 2030."


EPA Chief: 'This Is Not About Pollution Control...It's an Investment Strategy' | CNS News

What a major league dingbat. The worst thing about Obama appointees is that they think we'are all stupid.

 

[mamooth]

The district of Columbia is the ONLY thing the Constitution states the fed has the right to own. All other lands are the property of the states in which they are. The fed may lease lands from the states but they can not own it.

Being that claim has no legal backing whatsoever, it's clearly just the strange opinion of some fringe cultists.

 

[mamooth]

So can anyone explain the "plan" for reducing carbon emissions from electrical generation and at the same time --- subsidizing and promoting electric vehicles??

Make the electricity with making carbon. Removes emissions from fossil fuel vehicles. That decreases total emissions.

I really can't understand a thought that the damned minion at EPA mutters..

No surprise there. It's very difficult for the EPA or anyone to simplify concepts down to a point where even deniers can grasp them.

 

[jc456]

So can anyone explain the "plan" for reducing carbon emissions from electrical generation and at the same time --- subsidizing and promoting electric vehicles??

Make the electricity with making carbon. Removes emissions from fossil fuel vehicles. That decreases total emissions.

I really can't understand a thought that the damned minion at EPA mutters..

No surprise there. It's very difficult for the EPA or anyone to simplify concepts down to a point where even deniers can grasp them.

that's only because it is worded as libturd mumbo jumbo. I mean, the Repubs started the EPA and as in everything, the libs doctored it up under Obummer, played with it's authority cause that's what they do and create mumbo jumbo to confuse the bejesus out of normal folk. The nonnormal libturd understands it cause it's in their language.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Yep, you heard it here. Investment and I wonder who gets all that money?


"(CNSNews.com) - EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told Congress on Wednesday that the EPA's sweeping carbon-regulation plan "really is an investment opportunity. This is not about pollution control."

Spouting warnings about "climate change" ("The science is clear. The risks are clear...We must act."), McCarthy described and defended the EPA's plan to reduce pollution from existing power plants by setting various carbon-reduction goals for each state to meet by the year 2030."


EPA Chief: 'This Is Not About Pollution Control...It's an Investment Strategy' | CNS News

I'm having a sale on carbon this weekend. If anyone wishes to invest, simply transfer funds to my paypal account.
Normally $75 an ounce, this weekend only $50 an ounce.

 

[flacaltenn]

So can anyone explain the "plan" for reducing carbon emissions from electrical generation and at the same time --- subsidizing and promoting electric vehicles??

Make the electricity with making carbon. Removes emissions from fossil fuel vehicles. That decreases total emissions.

I really can't understand a thought that the damned minion at EPA mutters..

No surprise there. It's very difficult for the EPA or anyone to simplify concepts down to a point where even deniers can grasp them.

You must be one of the minions. Speak the language.. As in "Make the electricity with making carbon"...

Now THAT'S funny you little yellow critter..