Saturday, July 14, 2012

E.P.A. - #4041 - ALASKA Sues to Block Low-Sulfur Fuel Requirement - Yahoo News (2) Why the E.P.A. Prevails - EPA Abuse

BE SURE TO READ THIS, THE EPA IS BASING THIS ON A REGULATION THAT HAS NOT BEEN PASSED BY U.S. SENATE, WILL COST MANY JOBS IN THE MARINE VESSEL INDUSTRY AND CRUISE SHIP BUSINESS IN ALASKA.
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Reuters) - The state of Alaska sued the Obama administration on Friday to block environmental regulations that would require ships sailing in southern Alaska waters to use low-sulfur fuel. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Anchorage, challenges the new federal regulations, which require the use of low-sulfur fuel for large marine vessels such as cargo and cruise ships. The rule is scheduled to be enforced starting on August 1 by the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Coast Guard for ships operating within 200 miles of the shores of southeastern and south-central Alaska, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit faults the EPA, the Department of Homeland Security and others for using a marine treaty amendment as the basis for the new federal regulations without waiting for ratification of that amendment by the U.S. Senate. The Alaska Department of Law said in a statement that the low-sulfur-fuel requirement would be costly, jacking up prices for products shipped by marine vessel and harming Alaska's cruise industry. "Alaska relies heavily on maritime traffic, both for goods shipped to and from the state, and for the cruise ship passengers who support thousands of Alaskan jobs," Alaska Attorney General Michael Geraghty said in a statement.  Read more......

Why the E.P.A. Prevails - EPA Abuse - With the Supreme Court’s ruling in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, the stage was set for the EPA to rule on CO2. All that was required was a finding by the EPA that CO2 and other greenhouse gasses (GHG), such as Methane, were a threat to health and were a public danger.With an Endangerment Finding, the EPA would be at liberty to establish regulations controlling CO2, Methane, and other GHG. It made no difference that CO2 was a critical ingredient in life itself. The EPA used the science as defined by the UN and its International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the foundation for its Endangerment Finding. Whether the UN and the IPCC were the purveyors of good science made no difference. The EPA made its Endangerment Finding in December 2009, after which it had the authority to regulate CO2 and Methane under the Clean Air Act. The ruling has been challenged in court, but there is an underlying problem with any challenge, no matter how strong the argument and no matter how powerful the science.  Read more........

No comments:

Post a Comment