Follow this blog:
RSS

Republican leaders draft bill to eliminate EPA climate change rules

By | February 3, 2011, 5:07 PM PST

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has stated that Americans who favor the EPA's climate change rules are opposed to capitalism and "do not like our way of life."

Citing cost, House Republicans are drafting legislation that would amend the Clean Air Act to strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

Michigan Rep. Fred Upton, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), chairman of the subcommittee on energy and power, today unveiled draft legislation that is tentatively called the “Energy Tax Prevention Act.”

Upton and Whitfield told the press that the Clean Air Act was never intended to address climate change, and accused the EPA of planning to impose a “backdoor cap-and-trade tax” that could harm American businesses, they said. The draft is available online.

Tea party activist Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) incited populist anger against the EPA prior to his successful election in November, with statements such as: “‘Their agenda is not pollution, it’s capitalism,’ and ‘These people do not like our way of life.’” Paul promised to “rein in the EPA” if elected.

The Whitehouse has vowed that it will veto any legislation that blocks the EPA’s climate change rules, which the agency began to phase in this January. The EPA has been tepid in implementing its rules, granting biomass energy facilities a temporary reprieve last month.

“These efforts would halt EPA’s common-sense steps under the Clean Air Act to protect Americans from harmful air pollution that, until now, has not been subject to any pollution standards,” Brendan Gilfillan, an EPA spokesman, said during a press conference.

Gilfillan stated that the rules would compel businesses to invest more in clean energy technologies, thus creating “green” jobs. EPA administrator Lisa Jackson held a press conference to reiterate how the agency already regulates carbon emissions from automobiles and other large sources, and “the economy is fine.”

Some public interest groups also oppose any effort to block EPA climate rules from going into effect. The American Lung Association issued a statement saying that repealing the rules would lead to a rise in healthcare costs associated with respiratory diseases.

While the Federal government is mired in disagreement, 23 states have begun to implement some form of Cap and Trade at the local level.

Cap and trade is a strategy for reducing climate change that was originally proposed by free-market conservatives during the Reagan administration; many Republican Party leaders are now vehemently opposed to it and reject climate change science.

Rep. Upton, however, has affirmed his belief in climate change, but opposed climate change legislation passed during the previous Congress in 2009, alleging that it would harm the economy. Upton favors an energy mix including nuclear power and wind, according to the Washington Post.

The EPA is obligated to act to regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions due to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling in the case Massachusetts v. EPA, which classified carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

Massachusetts v. EPA was filed by a coalition of 12 states, and some local governments, sued to force a reluctant Bush era EPA to regulate greenhouse gasses from automobile exhaust. The state of Arizona’s attorney general recently abandoned the case.

The Clean Air Act was amended in 1990 during the presidency of George H. Bush to address Ozone depletion and new standards to fuel economy in motor vehicles. The amendment introduced an emissions trading system aimed at reducing acid rain pollutants from power plants, otherwise known as Cap and Trade.

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

David Worthington

About David Worthington

David Worthington is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

David Worthington

David Worthington

Contributing Editor

David Worthington has written for BetaNews, eWeek, PC World, Technologizer and ZDNet. Formerly, he was a senior editor at SD Times. He holds a degree from Temple University. He is based in New York.

Follow him on Twitter.

David Worthington

David Worthington

David does not have financial holdings that would influence how or what he covers. Occasionally he consults for other companies; should David cover a topic in which a client is involved, he will disclose this fact in his writing. His views do not represent those of ScaleOut Software.

He writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
26
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Republican leaders draft bill to eliminate EPA climate change rules
I want this man tryed for conspiracy to commit murder and crimes against the sovereign people. If these people start getting executed, people like him will get the point.
Posted by sandcanyongal
3rd Feb 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Republican leaders draft bill to eliminate EPA climate change rules
There is blatant bribery going on in Congress. The is one clear way to stop it. . I call for a complete financial audit of each person in Congress and Supreme Court - did I mention the President and Cabinet too? Upon completion of the financial investigation, it will be obvious which are blatant crooks. It's really time to end the corruption, truly so. I guess I should have a level of fear about being open but this is my earth too. Those people like Cheney only live as long as the rest of us. The difference is the level of permanent damage they inflict worldwide that cannot be undone.

For those of you who don?t understand exactly why the EPA is a critical agency that needs more authority, not less, please read on. Remember companies told people they couldn?t get cancer from second hand smoke or that cigarettes were good for digestion? The companies will tell you ANYTHING for a buck. When are we going to wake up and start charging the companies with murder for knowingly masking they are emitting lethal doses of waste into our air and water. On the east coast there are signs in restaurants and grocery stores that it?s not safe to eat fish more than once a week. Why? Mercury!

Cement plants use coal for power and coal emits large amounts of mercury into the air. Mercury is a heavy metal.
http://www.aggregateresearch.com/articles/18066/Cement-factories-release-huge-quantities-of-toxic-mercury-into-the-air.aspx
http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/r?dbs+hsdb:@term+@na+MERCURY+COMPOUNDS

Emissions from road traffic causing childhood leukemia.
http://pollutionfree.wordpress.com/2011/01/05/heavy-traffic-and-childhood-leukemia/
Diesel emissions: http://www.nj.gov/dep/stopthesoot/dieselhealthconcerns.htm
Motor vehicle toxins: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/f02004.pdf

Crude oil pollution:
http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/lawsregs/opaover.htm

Here?s something on atrazine. It turns male reptiles into females that reproduce. It feminizes human males and can also cause male breast cancer.
http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/reregistration/atrazine/atrazine_update.htm

I believe the ones who are for doing away with EPA are traitors to our country, as are any that vote affirmatively. They should be tried for treason against the sovereign people and if found guilty, publicly executed?it is my personal opinion and I stand by it.
-Silence is Consent
Posted by sandcanyongal
3rd Feb 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Republican leaders draft bill to eliminate EPA climate change rules
I can't believe these elected officials!! Climate change is real and something HAS to be done. As stated in the article, this is a conservative idea, so why are the conservatives against it now?
Posted by k8 br
4th Feb 2011
0 Votes
+ -
wow...
The response from you two is sickening.

Do you even listen to what the global warming scientists say, or do you just read headlines?

As a global community we just spent 40 years and trillions of dollars reducing SO2 emissions to eliminate acid rain. Most of my life has lived under restrictions placed to stop acid rain.

The same scientific geniuses that brought you global warming went before the world community in Cancun recently proposing we pay them to dump millions of tons of SO2 into the atmosphere to combat global warming.

The bottom line is they see no problem with poisoning our water supplies and killing plants with acid rain again to protect us from the big bad demon of global warming.

All so they can make a buck pumping the SO2 that we just cleaned out of the air.

If that was a legitimate answer to the problem we could find a few factories that would gladly turn off their expensive to operate filtering systems and pump out tons of SO2 a day.

Talk about your chicken littles running around screaming the sky is falling. Calm down.

@sandcanyongal

If this mornonic plan to pump SO2 is put in place, can I execute you and your global warming friends when the fish start dying again in the high mountain lakes from the acid rain?

Grow up and calm down everybody.
Posted by Hates Idiots
4th Feb 2011
0 Votes
+ -
If the warm-mongers are ever permitted to have their way...
...there will be no need for trails:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAkfEX0sqAI
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
4th Feb 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Republican leaders draft bill to eliminate EPA climate change rules
I am a strong supporter of the EPA, when we are talking about real pollutants. I am not in favor of using clean air regulations as a back door path to cap and trade. If you want that, then win enough seats in congress to pass a law. This method will result in an attack on the agency and an effort to decrease its funding.

Global warming may be real, but it is a long term problem that is far less important than more pressing issues (peak oil, economy). The cap and trade system is more about redistribution of income from developed countries to developing countries than a real solution. Case in point is China. China is one of the top CO2 emitters, but proposed CO2 agreements like Kyoto cap CO2 on a per capita basis. So you take US emissions divide by 300 million and china emissions and divide by 1.2 billion. China get to INCREASE emissions, while the US cuts. Net CO2 increases while US economy is destroyed. Not about solving global warming but redistribution of income. Cap and trade is a system that was made to corruption and manipulation. Put a direct tax on fossil fuels if you want to cap emissions but do not agree to unfair cap and trade treaty that hurts the US.
Posted by ken325
4th Feb 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Republican leaders draft bill to eliminate EPA climate change rules
Also sandcanyongal- Please stop calling for murder and executions. We don't kill people for expressing a political opinion in this country.
Posted by ken325
4th Feb 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Republican leaders draft bill to eliminate EPA climate change rules
has everybody lost their minds geez we are killing our planet and the future of our kids and grandkids read the scientific proof of the vast majority, not one two peoples findings
Posted by dwhite0849
4th Feb 2011
0 Votes
+ -
Bravo ken..
sandycanyongal is typical of the species Americus moonbatus.

@dwhite..

Few people do the math ken mentions. I have. Even fewer global warming followers do the math.

Global warming followers do not comprehend that the proposed CO2 emission controls end up with a net increase in global CO2 output while the US and other developed nations suffer.

Other nations like China and India and most of the continent of Africa are allowed to increase their CO2 output so the net global CO2 output more than doubles over a 20-year period.

If the point of the accords is to eventually eliminate CO2 emissions, they fail.
If the point of the accords is to reduce net global CO2 emissions, they fail.
If the point is to slow the growth of net global CO2 emissions, they fail.

What will it take for you to realize it is has nothing to do with the planet? It is all about the money.

The numbers that support this point are put out by the alleged global warming EXPERTS. None of you look past the headlines and look at the data.

I think those of you who chose to ignore the facts must be losing your minds.
Posted by Hates Idiots
4th Feb 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Republican leaders draft bill to eliminate EPA climate change rules
HI, #4 & #9

Oh please, the money spent on reducing SO2 emissions and acid rain isn't even close to trillions (unless maybe you're talking about Zimbabwean Dollars). In 2010 the estimated benefits of the cap and trade program for SO2/NOx were $122 billion while costs were around $3 billion. (www.epa.gov/capandtrade/documents/benefits.pdf)

I'm not a fan of using SO2 for geoengineering to fight global warming. At best it's just stopgap to buy some time and at worst it's just adding further pollution to the situation. It's mostly proposed by people who don't want to do something about reducing CO2 emissions.

I agree with Ken that a straight up tax on fossil carbon would be the simplest, most effective way of attacking the problem. The tax needs to apply to the fossil carbon that went into producing and delivering our imports as well as domestically. It should start out low and get raised every year or two until it becomes prohibitive to use fossil carbon in 25 or 30 years.

Regarding China, yes they recently passed the US in total CO2 emissions (although the US is still 4 times China in per person emissions) but they are also investing 4 times as much at the US on clean and renewable energy and they're going to leave US in the dust in the future unless we get on the ball.

Global warming is real. The political question is what we're going to do about it.
Posted by riverat1
4th Feb 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Republican leaders draft bill to eliminate EPA climate change rules
The writer of this story doesn't understand cap and trade at all. It has to do with science just redistribution of wealth. The EPA has no authority to do what they did and those involved should be removed. I'm not sure the EPA is even constitutional.
Posted by DEfromDC
4th Feb 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Republican leaders draft bill to eliminate EPA climate change rules
My previous reply should have said "cap and trade has nothing to do with science" .
By the way, Global Warming was invented by a college professor Al Gore studied under without any basis of fact. The meteorologists I worked with were quick to let people know no one in their profession was involved in the Global Warming Concept. It is one of the biggest frauds ever imposed on the public just to make some people rich. None of the things they used to establish the program are true, 100%false.
Posted by DEfromDC
4th Feb 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Republican leaders draft bill to eliminate EPA climate change rules
For most of the chemicals that the EPA regulates you have a process for determining what is a safe value. You expose an animal to them chemical until you see harmful effects and that becomes the safe value. With CO2 you have to push the level up till it starts to displace oxygen because it is not toxic. To regulate it using existing laws you have to show that CO2 is harmful and develop a safe value. If you regulate CO2 because it might change the weather then how about limiting the use of fertilizers because it lowers available O2 in water? That is a proven result. I'm just saying this creates a precedent for doing things with regulations that should be done with a law.

Sorry about the horrible grammar in my previous post. I didn't proof read before hitting submit.

I agree that China is doing a lot in solar, but it is also building 2 coal power plants a day and none of them have equipment to limit pollution. If you believe that CO2 is bad then you need to cap at current levels, otherwise the goal is redistribution of wealth from developed to developing countries. You can't let a country the size of China increase emissions if you really believe CO2 is bad.
Posted by ken325
4th Feb 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Republican leaders draft bill to eliminate EPA climate change rules
I believe peak oil is a much bigger threat than climate change and it will happen a lot faster. I predict that we will go into a prolonged, deep depression within the next 15 years due to the end of cheap oil. This will effect the food supply and result in wars over remaining resources. When we run out of cheap oil we will lower our CO2 emissions, so I am not worried about that. Focus on getting off oil before that threat gets us. A fossil fuel tax would encourage alternative energy and provide revenue for the transition away from oil.
Posted by ken325
4th Feb 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Republican leaders draft bill to eliminate EPA climate change rules
I can see you bright folks are advocating that pollution isn't really a big deal just because we are permanently damaging our environment, I mean we'll be dead anyway! Are you really that blind and uncaring about the future of our children and our planet??
Posted by dlenin51@...
4th Feb 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Republican leaders draft bill to eliminate EPA climate change rules
DEfromDC,

#11
I guess the Supreme Court decision from 2007 (Massachusetts v. EPA) that said the EPA can not decline to regulate CO2 doesn't matter to you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._Environmental_Protection_Agency

#12
Cap and trade has been very successful in reducing SO2 and NOx emissions thus reducing acid rain as a cost far less than industry originally estimated. In 2010 it provided an estimated benefit of $122 billion for a cost of $3 billion. That's an excellent cost/benefit ratio. No reason it can't work for CO2 as well. Still, as I said above I think a straight carbon tax would work better.

Global warming from greenhouse gases was "invented" by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, 115 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect

The term "global warming" was first used in a 1957 paper which I don't have a reference to at the moment.

In 1967 President Lyndon Johnson was briefed on the possibility of global warming from increases in atmospheric CO2 due to human emissions.

It has a long history.

If it's the kind of fraud you think it is then some scientist ought to be able to show it pretty easily. That hasn't happened.
Posted by riverat1
4th Feb 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Republican leaders draft bill to eliminate EPA climate change rules
Ken, #13 & 14

Emissions of CO2 need to be reduced to a net of zero eventually. It's not something we can do overnight but it's time to get started. If we work hard at it we might be able to actually start reducing emissions in 2020 or so.

You are right that peak oil is likely to bring down our civilization as we know it in the next decade or so. CO2 emissions from petroleum use are around 1/3 of the total emissions. We also need to eliminate coal power plants and eventually even the use of natural gas.

The problem with global warming is even if we were to cut CO2 emissions to zero tomorrow it would take 30-50 years for the warming to actually stop. That is because of the buffering effect of the oceans. They have to catch up with the warming that already exists before warming actually stops.

The effects of global warming are already being seen and they're only going to get worse until we quit exacerbating the problem.
Posted by riverat1
4th Feb 2011
0 Votes
+ -
The insanity
The models for predicting CO2's long-term effect on the
environment have already been proven defective. (So much so
that they felt the need to cheat when they realized it) So now,
based upon that bad science, it's proposed that we intentionally
disperse known harmful pollutants into the atmosphere to correct
what likely isn't even a problem.

As is so often the case, the efforts at environmental remediation
are more destructive than the original problem. But there are
plenty of people who will get rich just the same.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
5th Feb 2011
0 Votes
+ -
Climate models defective? Prove it!
John, #18

If you think that the major General Circulation Model climate models have been proven defective then you have no idea what they do or how they work. The projections from James Hanson's 1980's model that he presented before a Congressional committee in 1988 are reasonably close to the actual climate we have seen.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/


As I said,I personally oppose using SO2 to mitigate global warming. At best it's a stopgap to give us time to reduce CO2 emissions but it isn't and never will be a solution. It's like taking aspirin for the pain from a broken arm. It helps but you still need to get the fracture set and in a cast.

Regardless of what happens there will be plenty of people who get rich. What's new? You're just objecting to one way of doing it.
Posted by riverat1
5th Feb 2011
0 Votes
+ -
Hansons 1980 Model was deeply flawed
Re.Riverat1 at #19

You are absolutely wrong!

Hansens alarmist projections were exactly matched to the temperature upswing that started in the 1970s. This upswing was around 1.6degC per century, around 4 times the long term average of 0.4degC per century. So Hansen was able to whip up quite a lot of hysteria. But it is now well established that the upswing was caused by a natural 65 to 70 year oscillation in ocean temperature known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.

If the 4 times normal upswing had indeed continued beyond 2000 as Hansen had confidently predicted, he might have had some solid evidence to back his alarmist stance. But as it is, the last decade has see a flattening out at the top of the AMO cycle and the next 20-30 years will doubtless see a corresponding downturn.

Meanwhile the underlying long term upward trend of +0.4degC/century won't change much. It is a consequence of the world recovering from the (again entirely natural) 1000 year climate cycle from the Medieval Warm Period (1000AD) via the Little Ice Age (1500AD) and on to the present day.

So there is absolutely no cause for alarm. There is no need for authoratarian measures from the EPA, bypassing the democratic process. There is no need for barmy alternative green energy sources such as windmills that only generate power when the wind blows and bio-ethanol that is several times as expensive as fossil fuels and serves simply to de-stabilise world food prices.

If you dont believe me, take a look at:

http://www.thetruthaboutclimatechange.org

This chart uses the official Hadley climate data and shows clearly both the AMO cycle and the 0.4degC per century long term trend.

When will this hysteria end?
Posted by cosserat@...
5th Feb 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Republican leaders draft bill to eliminate EPA climate change rules
cosserat, #20

We already had this argument in another post. Your truthaboutclimatechange page doesn't prove anything. It's just numerical fitting that doesn't take the physical world into account. The AMO certainly has its effects on temperature but it's not the underlying cause of the rise in temperatures but merely a cyclic phenomenon that averages out to zero. Unless you include solar and other forcings it's meaningless to real science.

Did you bother to go read the link I provided? In Hansen's 1980's model scenario B was closest to the real world forcings. Hansen used a climate sensitivity* of 4 degrees C when the real value is closer to 3 C. If someone took the time to rerun the model with a more accurate sensitivity it would come that much closer to what really happened.

If I knew you personally I'd be happy to make a large wager with you about a downturn in temperatures over the next 20-30 years. Easy money IMHO.

*Climate sensitivity is the expected temperature rise for a doubling of atmospheric CO2.
Posted by riverat1
5th Feb 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Republican leaders draft bill to eliminate EPA climate change rules
Riverat,

Gavin re-ran Hansen's model B this month and came up with a sensitivity of 3.3 C. Here's the link:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/2010-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/

Turns out that some of the details have needed further refinement, as is the nature of legitimate models, as you can read about in the rest of the article. I found that the increases in Ocean Heat Content to be quite revealing, as well, with the overwhelming conclusion of global warming still front and center. I, too, would love to take a piece of the action on that bet with cosserat!

And thanks for doing an excellent job countering the broad brushed denialist propaganda with the unvarnished facts. The only thing I would add is to reinforce what is obvious to us but may have slipped by others if they don't understand the big picture: SO2 emissions needed to be removed from coal combustion for very very good reasons: increased respiratory distress downwind, resulting in higher morbidity and mortality rates for anyone with asthma, COPD, and other respiratory issues. Acidification of the rain, lakes and rivers in the eastern half of the nation is a huge problem that has huge consequences, and would increase dramatically if SO2 was not removed from power plant plumes. Somehow injecting SO2 into the atmosphere for geoengineering our way out of the CO2 emission related climate effects is crazy talk, plain and simple.

Finally, use common sense about the dangers of CO2 emissions, folks. The issue is not its presence in the atmosphere, it's dumping so much of it in such a short time from the planet's geological sinks of carbon that the planet cannot maintain a homeostatic balance in the atmosphere. Just like you can drown a plant with water, or kill it by not watering it enough, the planet has various bio-geo-chemical ways to reach an equilibrium, and it is merrily going about doing this by absorbing some of the vast carbon emissions into the oceans, which is changing the acidity of the water, absorbing some into plant biomass production (which, due to droughts, habitat destruction and increased evapotranspiration is actually decreasing), and, you guessed it, warming the atmosphere.

We'll continue to refine our understanding of this complex dynamic process, but the jury is in about the reality of climate change. Ignoring it is like continuing to smoke a pack a day even though you've developed a nasty morning cough.
Posted by klassman6
6th Feb 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Republican leaders draft bill to eliminate EPA climate change rules
Thanks klassman6 (you live up to your nickname happy,

Yes, I saw that RealClimate post when it was made. Another excellent post there. I cited the one that I did because it directly addressed Hansen's 1980's model.

Not to be contrary but I don't think Gavin actually reran Hansen's model. That would take some effort and a fair amount of computer time to accomplish although today's supercomputers could run it much faster. What he did was a quick and dirty calculation on the difference between Hansen's results and what really happened to estimate the climate sensitivity. Hansen used a climate sensitivity of 4.2 degrees C in his model runs and Gavin's calculation show a sensitivity of about 3.3 C would have produced better results.

I agree with you about the dangers of SO2 but putting it in the stratosphere is a bit different than having it in concentrated plumes in the lower troposphere. The acid rain and health effects would be far more diffuse as the SO2 dropped out. Still as I said, it's at best something to buy a little time to deal with the CO2 problem and I don't support it.

Lately I've been fascinated by the extreme weather for the past year+ and what's happening in the Arctic. If we keep getting weather like the past year then it becomes obvious to people that something is going on. This year has set a new low for sea ice extent in January in the satellite record and Hudson Bay didn't completely freeze over until mid-January, something that normally happens in late November.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

If permafrost and clathrate thawing really gets going and starts dumping large amounts of methane into the atmosphere we could really be in for a rough ride in the last half of this century regardless of what we do about CO2.
Posted by riverat1
6th Feb 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Republican leaders draft bill to eliminate EPA climate change rules
My understanding is that stratospheric SO2 accumulates into polar stratospheric clouds whose particles create a surface where CFCs and other chlorines can react with the ozone to help deepen the ozone hole. In addition to the well documented cooling, there is some evidence that they can cause regional reductions in rainfall that could help spread desertification. All in all, seems like a pretty premature process to jump into that has the potential of creating at least two more problems for the one problem that it might impact for the better.

I ran across a presentation that concludes that the clathrate emission rates are not as great as they once feared so the threat is reduced as far as runaway warming goes. Not to say that it is not still an area of concern, just not quite as big of a threat yet as they feared. If I can find the source again, I'll post it.
Posted by klassman6
8th Feb 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Republican leaders draft bill to eliminate EPA climate change rules
Yes, that was my point. SO2 in the stratosphere causes different problems than it does in the lower troposphere.

Most scientists studying the methane issue don't seem to think that a short massive release of it is likely but any increase in the release rate of methane from permafrost or clathrates will have an effect. As I understand it it's an area with a lot of uncertainty.
Posted by riverat1
8th Feb 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Republican leaders draft bill to eliminate EPA climate change rules
i want to see the first windmill in nyc and downtown la.you think prices are high now just wait till you see what happens aftre cap and tax.
Posted by hwwgandolf@...
10th Feb 2011
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!