S.J.Res.26 - A joint resolution disapproving a rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the endangerment finding and the cause or contribute findings for greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.

view all titles (2)

All Bill Titles

  • Official: A joint resolution disapproving a rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the endangerment finding and the cause or contribute findings for greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. as introduced.
  • Official: A joint resolution disapproving a rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the endangerment finding and the cause or contribute findings for greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. as introduced.

This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.

Comments Feed

Displaying 1-30 of 34 total comments.

toray99 08/01/2010 5:47pm
in reply to tinahdans Jun 04, 2010 6:28am

Don’t forget Goldman Sachs which bought millions into CCX also.

PageMaker 07/14/2010 5:11am
Link Reply
+ -1

There is much controversy over whether anthropomorphic CO2 emissions are responsible for current or projected atmospheric warming trends. One thing that has never been disputed, by either side (because it can’t) is the amounts of carbon dioxide that human activities are releasing into the air every year, and the corresponding increase in CO2 percentages.

Whether one accepts – as 90+% of the world’s climate scientists now do – that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming or not, I always have to wonder whether these people actually think that mankind can fundamentally alter the composition of our planet’s atmosphere with no consequence at all? Although we have an overwhelming amount of scientific data amassed to support the connection between CO2 and global warming, science is unneeded to make a fundamental decision that humankind needs to seek new energy sources; simple common sense and a modicum of prudence compels us to.

ashprez82 07/11/2010 6:45pm
in reply to tinahdans Jun 04, 2010 6:31am

Thanks for taking up two whole sections to make your point. Global warming is not a “proven hoax,” except in the media echo chamber that you’ve created for yourself. And your description of the green movement is both sad and laughable. The modern green movement is seen everywhere, such as at my community college, where a new solar panel system in the northeast part of campus will provide student and staff cars with shade during the hot summer while simultaneously offsetting one-third of the energy costs at the college per year. That’s a lot of savings, and a lot of jobs created to build and install those solar panels. How about instead of suggesting we all sit on our thumbs, you try and come forward with a positive vision for America’s future?

ashprez82 07/11/2010 6:30pm
in reply to ldsj1013 Mar 22, 2010 5:13am

Unemployment won’t mean a damn thing if the earth is too hot for us to live. Even if you don’t believe the earth is getting hotter, pollution can and will wreck the environment (see: BP, oil spill, Gulf of Mexico). Instead of recommending that we just “let nature take its course,” try compromising a little bit – green jobs will make our country energy independent so we don’t have to rely on foreign oil. We’ll lead the rest of the world in green technology such as solar and wind, and have the moral high card on the environment when dealing with China.

dankennedy73 06/23/2010 5:20am

I would like to thank those among my fellow countrymen whohave tried to explain global warming to the idiots, But I feel that they still don’t get it becuase the rhetoric used in the explanations is beyond their comprehension.

Let’s put it in the simplest possible for afterall, it’s not rocket science.
loudmouthed conservatives breath out CO2, make air hotter, ice caps melt, coastal cities flood, Bye bye Myrtle Beach. Maybe they’ll get that….hopefully

mikeb37415 06/17/2010 3:57am
in reply to DarkAngel Mar 04, 2010 6:52am

Yes clouds do add to albedo (reflectivity) of the earth. But so do ice packs at the north pole (which are now gone part of the summer) and snow on greenland (which also starting to melt) as well as many other glaciers around the earth. This will change the earth’s albedo and more UV radiation will be absorbed by the earth!

mikeb37415 06/17/2010 3:42am

Murkowski resolution goes down to defeat in stupid episode that means nothing!!! yea!

skrap 06/11/2010 4:25am
in reply to oakgall May 26, 2010 2:37am

This just in: the last 12 months have been the hottest since records have been kept. The. Hottest. Ever.

Playtime is over. It’s time to solve this.


skrap 06/11/2010 3:52am
in reply to ldsj1013 Mar 22, 2010 5:13am

And your opinion is based on what, exactly? Not science, surely! So… talk radio? Knee-jerk reaction?

“While volcanoes may have raised pre-historic CO2 levels and temperatures, according to the USGS Volcano Hazards Program, human activities now emit 150 times as much CO2 as volcanoes (whose emissions are relatively modest compared to some earlier times).”


skrap 06/11/2010 3:43am
in reply to DarkAngel Mar 04, 2010 6:52am

If it’s the sun, then why are temperatures continuing to rise as the sun reaches its minimum output for its 11-year cycle? If it’s the sun, then why do global temperatures not track the 11-year output cycle of the sun?

Answer: It’s not the sun. It’s us.

skrap 06/11/2010 3:41am
in reply to Anonymous Feb 23, 2010 7:57am

Ladies and gentlemen, the Dunning-Kruger effect in action!

skrap 06/11/2010 3:32am
in reply to mraith Jun 08, 2010 12:16pm

So, you consider the Clean Air Act an unnecessary faux-Green law? What level of death and disease from pollution is acceptable to you, and how should that level be achieved without government regulation?

djezell 06/10/2010 9:09am

You know….IF we are destroying our own way of living, I don’t want to wait until after the fact to say HAHAHA i told you so! I’d just assume that until scientists start presenting more hard evidence that we AREN’T killing ourselves, its safer to assume the worse case scenario. We have unemployement and economic issues? Oh, does that really change the possibility that there may be bigger “monsters” looming behind the next corner? We simply cant afford to take these sort of chances. Ignoring the possibility doesn’t make it go away. Disproving it does.

Filtered Comment [ show ]

tinahdans 06/04/2010 6:31am
Link Reply
+ -2

Equally troubling is the blatant acknowledgement by those involved in this high stakes green rush that power & profit are the only real benefits to be had. The words of Joel Rogers: “I hope you all realized that you could eliminate every power plant in America today and you can stop every car in America. Take out the entire power generation sector and you still would not be anywhere near 80 percent below 1990 levels, & this is with bringing the economy to a complete halt… basically.”
Carbon credits are literally nothing, nor do they solve any problem. They create nothing, except great wealth for those who seek to traffic in them. Global warming is a proven hoax. However, lets pretend that global warming is real. How would buying carbon credits from one person, & then selling them to another, make any difference whatsoever? The short answer is, it wouldn’t. You would still have the same amounts of carbon in the air. The only real effect is how much lighter your wallet is about to be.

tinahdans 06/04/2010 6:28am

The “environmental movement,” once the bastion of peace loving hippies and Earth mothers, is potentially the booming business of the 21st century. Billions of dollars currently change hands each year in the name of the environment and, by all accounts, the surface is only scratched.
To date the missing piece of the puzzle has been a government mandate, something cap-and-trade legislation will remedy. Those already in the game stand to reap a fortune on the backs of average Americans who will see their energy bills “necessarily skyrocket,” as President Obama explained, as businesses pass along the new cost of doing what they do in a “green America.”
It’s interesting to note that without the specter of a government mandate, the CCX would hold no value. Likewise Fannie Mae’s patented trading system and Emerald Cities’ prospects for “a new vital economic sector” would be nothing more than fool’s gold.

Spam Comment

mackaydean 05/18/2010 6:52am

This is a difficult issue and after absorbing the comments of Bigmouthmom, Darkangel and others, I have a tough choice: Do I believe the vast majority of the planet’s best climate scientists or do I believe the good people who have posted such compelling arguments on this blog. Although I think education can be overrated, I’m going to have to go with the climate scientists.

BIGMOUTHMOM 04/27/2010 5:36pm
Link Reply
+ -2

I am no science major but I agree with ldsj1013 that the earth has taken care of this CO2 issue throughout history. I mean what do plants and trees need to thrive, think about it. What about the Medieval warming period? How do you explain that the earth was hotter then than now? There are two many special interest who will make billions of dollars off of this cap and trade issue and the push for going green. There is major money that those who spout global warming have invested for the past 10 years into businesses that will profit from forcing this on the American public. These organizations put out a message to influence how you think and to get tax money for grants, but please let common sense prevail.

Moderated Comment

djtoth 04/16/2010 10:53am
Link Reply
+ -1

Remember 535 people are telling the rest of WE the people what we can and can not do all the while voting themselves pay raises and benefits after one year of service…please! Who wouldn’t want a “job” like that?! They themselves are above or exempt from all the legislation they pass, seriously, I don’t care what party anyone is anymore just do the job you said you would when elected, otherwise go get a real one if you can find it!

oreandra 04/08/2010 6:41pm
Link Reply
+ -1

I’m glad Congress is making known their disapproval and I approve of this, but it is toothless! Furthermore, Congress and the legislative branch are the only branch which is supposed to be involved in creating laws. Not alphabet soup agencies and their mandates, policies, etc ad nauseum. Executive orders were intended to relate only to employees of the executive branch, not as law unto the People. Speaking of which isn’t this supposed to “Of the People by the People”? Where has our power gone? When was the last time you felt you had ANY impact on the government? If we would wake up and make these things PERFECTLY clear we would go a long way to bringing ourselves back from the brink…

Filtered Comment [ show ]

technopolitica 03/19/2010 3:22pm

As an environmental sciences major in college and an environmental studies graduate student I am a bit confused by what DarkAngel posted above about climate change.

First of all, DarkAngel asserts that “Water vapor is also the number one green house gas. NOT CO2” and that “the cause of global warming is, and always will be, the SUN”. In some sense this is true: water vapor currently accounts for 60-80% of the current greenhouse effect, while the remaining 20% seems to be human-caused. Water vapor is a natural greenhouse gas and has helped keep our planet warm and habitable over its history.

However, it is important to realize that human CO2 emissions are not inconsequential. Because Earth’s climate is a dynamic system with lots of feedbacks, that extra 20% increase in the greenhouse effect (mostly due to CO2 emissions) can and is leading to a shift in the Earth’s climate. You can read about climate feedbacks here: http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/climate-feedback.html

DarkAngel 03/04/2010 6:52am
Link Reply
+ -3
in reply to DarkAngel Mar 04, 2010 6:45am

For those if you that need to me to break it down, the cause of global warming is, and always will be, the SUN!!!

High temperatures creates water vapor in the atmosphere. If you paid attention in elementary science class you would know that water vapor in the atmosphere is in the form of clouds. Water vapor is also the number one green house gas. NOT CO2!!!

Continuing clouds block out solar radiation, which is essential in the plant [green and leafy not industrial] process of photosynthesis. If the process is hindered, the plants will be less effective in decarbonation of the air. Less CO2 is absorbed by the plant, more CO2 exists.

DarkAngel 03/04/2010 6:45am
Link Reply
+ -1

Temperature Increase →
Production of #1 Greenhouse Gas, Water Vapor [Clouds] →
Reduced Photosynthesis →
More CO2!!!

Are you smarter than a 5th Grader Yet?

Anonymous 02/24/2010 8:08am
Link Reply
+ -4

all lys to fund their one world governance………no no no no no

Anonymous 02/24/2010 8:07am
Link Reply
+ -1


Filtered Comment [ show ]

Anonymous 02/23/2010 5:58am
Link Reply
+ -2


Vote on This Bill

64% Users Support Bill

176 in favor / 101 opposed

Send Your Senator a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments