Reply #40: The EPA will continue to do everything it is currently doing

[karynnj]

Only recently did they rule that CO2 can be regulated, but they are not doing that and have not decided how to do that.

As to Nixon being the greatest environmentalist, you might be too young to remember that it was an enormous grassroots effort that led to all the things that Nixon signed. It was the people pushing Congressmen - and defeating more than half of the dirty dozen - that led to the legislation Nixon signed.

One thing that was extremely different then was that the two parties were not as polarized. There were many Republicans who were very good on the environment - including many who were liberal. In fact, one of the Republican Senators who led on environmental issues was Senator Heinz. Had global warming been a known issue then, it would have been much easier to pass bipartisan legislation that you would like. Even had it been worked on in the prosperous 1990s, it would have not been as hard as it is now.

I didn't see you attacking Feingold and Franken and the 12 other Democrats who demanded that coal fired plants be allowed to pollute at the current level. Tell me how Kerry gets to 60 votes without writing in parts you term "corporate" when at least 14 Democrats would not vote for it. Can you find 15 Republicans to replace them and get the extra one?

Here, the choices might be a bill like this that sets a legislative framework for putting a price on carbon or the status quo. It is not clear what the EPA could do on this. The state and regional efforts would continue. However, they do not cover some of the areas contributing the most carbon. What do you think the EPA could do in the coal states? Do you seriously think they will threaten to shut down coal fired plants?