Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (136697)	4/15/2010 11:03:44 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 543273

"when the Supreme Court ruled, in Massachusetts v. EPA, that the agency should determine whether greenhouse gases threaten our health. The Bush administration refused to use this authority, but when Obama took office he allowed the EPA to do its job again. This past December the EPA published a science-based "endangerment finding," which found that CO2 and five other greenhouse gases are, in fact, dangerous to human life. Once the EPA issues an endangerment finding, it is legally bound to promulgate regulations to address the problem; the first of these were the vehicle emissions reductions announced on April 1." The Supreme Court, of which I am still not a member, did not ask the cost of saving our environment; rather, they ordered the EPA to protect us. If you don't like political vacuums, complain to the R's doing the Larry Craig Stall. In the meantime, the EPA is doing its job, for the first time in a long time. Pollute or go broke? Go broke. My grandkids don't own stock in CO2 producers, , but they will "own" the world in 50 years.