No More Carbon Dioxide, Part II

Do not feel safe with the knowledge that Congress is trying to work out a compromise on the Cap and Trade energy bill.  I know some are thinking that, if the compromise bill is passed, at least for the moment, this country won’t be brought to its knees.  You think, as this administration wants you to, that we will still be competitive in the world’s markets as our products will not carry the imbedded cost, aka, tax, of paying for a permit that will allow the manufacture our  products.  And, you think, our energy bills may not rise for another ten years.  So, maybe life is good, after all.  Not so.

The Pandora’s Box, opened by the EPA’s declaration on April 17 that carbon is a threat  to the public health, is far more cavernous than you could have imagined.  Whether Congress reaches a compromise on this bill or not, this country will suffer.  And, here’s one reason why.

Having determined that carbon is a “threat”, anyone in this country who chooses to do so can  now sue any manufacturer, power plant, oil refinery, airport, or even your local dairy farm because it is emitting carbon.  Industrious lawyers throughout the country are drafting “class action” lawsuits even as we speak, because, after all, carbon is a “threat”.

The net effect of these lawsuits, other than the obvious increase in the cost of products to pay the legal fees, will be a patch-work quilt of case law defining how much carbon emission is “dangerous”.  Depending upon the jurisdiction in which you live,  you will either have a a manufacturer who employs thousands, or a manufacturer that is forced to shut its doors and move to a more “carbon friendly” jurisdiction.

The pronouncement by the EPA that carbon is a threat, without accompanying regulations as to how much carbon is a threat, was insanity.  So, let the litigation begin.

2 replies
  1. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    Hmmm. The government proclaims something to be "in need of reform," lawyers find an opportunity to sue, and prices skyrocket.  It happened to health care, now they plan to do it to energy.   Count on plenty of embedded costs being transferred to us, or reflected in reduced services.

    Can they tax us because we are carbon based lifeforms?

    Scotty, beam me up!!

  2. Jim Macdonald
    Jim Macdonald says:

     The EPA  just adds insult to injury, especially after 7 years of cooling.   As a meteorologist I have been writing e-mails to my representatives, newspapers including the NewYork Times, and various other blog sites, just hoping I might get through to someone. I also wrote  my objections to the EPA contact person, milbourn.cathy@epa.gov

       The obsession with CO2 is holding back science and discouraging investigation of the real climate drivers, the sun and the ocean oscillations.

Comments are closed.