BREAKING:EPA DECLARES CO2 POLLUTANT!

Bang goes Coco Cola and Pepsi, full of deadly pollutants.

Out goes all the CO2 fire extinguishers

[pin !!

now!

Nice..they will kill us for our own good..


In Gov We Trust


We are so doomed

don't forget cow farts, human farts and farts in general.

even then you can't light a match to cover the smell.


seriously- this is f'ed up

The timing is convenient..........

fuck
them

swine flu vaccines are okay

but i'm waiting to exhale.

and oxygen is an explosive/corrosive


I can't wait to hear what they conclude about water !!!

Anyone here see YET what this is all about?

It has NOTHING to do with the ever-so-precious "environment" but rather has everything to do with driving the final stake thru the heart of western civilization.

What de-industrialization, unions, outsourcing and plain old unbridled GREED couldn't accomplish, THIS WILL.

The environmentalist SOB's very literally ARE the modern day progeny of the old Soviet Communists, and just watch - like Khrushchev once said, they WILL "Bury Us" yet!

Just not in a manner we had envisioned.

R.I.P. USA

Congress might need to hear from a few constituents right about now. We use to have a Representative Republic. "representatives" of the people use to make law but the EPA and all the other alphabet administrations, regulatory bodies are making congress obsolete. By simply declaring this or that and regulating without so much as a "by your leave", they are making congress and the people that elect their officials completely irrelevant. What the EPA is doing is rule by fiat. They are turning this country into an Oligarchy.

sorry about my lang here but their fucking insane all of them

Exactly and it is even remotely possible to declare a state of emergency based on some hooey like this.

Is this not what the EPA has been doing since it's inception?

Part of why the auto industry is the way it is is because of Government interference.

Where was the outrage when the EPA started mandating what the car makers manufactured?

All three at the time (late 1960's) should have operated as a cohesive front, and CLOSED DOWN, telling the Govt. they did not care to build cars as dictated by the EPA.

Last one out turn off the lights send everyone home, we're DONE.

Within 6 months with the economy in the dumper, the Govt would have relented and allowed them to continue making cars as the market demanded, NOT some Govt. agency.

It's too late now, the precedent has been set.

The next thing they'll do is mandate anti-pollutionmasks we all have to wear to prevent our own breath from warming the planet.

Now WE'RE DONE...

Ain't communism GRAND ??!?!?!?

Obama clearly fexing dictatorial powers from the Bush administration. What executive order is Obama implementing? Quiz?

You wouldn't even believe how deadly water can be. Oxygen is corrosive and allows fires to burn. What next?

and here's why ... [link to www.marketwatch.com]





By Kim Hjelmgaard, MarketWatch

COPENHAGEN (MarketWatch) -- The value of the global carbon trading market could rise from roughly $118 billion in 2008 to nearly $2 trillion by 2020, although it currently remains frozen in the headlights pending safe passage of U.S. emissions trading legislation.

"The biggest missing piece from the [Copenhagen] policy equation is the U.S. emissions trading law," said Dirk Forrister, managing director of Natural Source Asset Management, in an interview. "The high-growth scenarios for the carbon market [will] only occur when the Senate acts and a U.S. law is adopted."

Reuters
U.N. CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE
The future of carbon trading
The value of the global carbon trading market could rise to nearly $2 trillion by 2020, although it's currently at a standstill pending the passage of U.S. emissions trading legislation.
• Copenhagen: What's in it for investors?
• Red alert: Climate alarm for wine industry
• Red wine in England? Maybe not for long
• Rising tide: California's climate crisis
• See the full special report
/conga/story/2009/12/copenhagen.html 45525

Carbon trading, which is also sometimes referred to as emissions trading, is currently the most popular strategy for reducing companies' global carbon dioxide emissions, with the alternative being a direct carbon tax.

Cap-and-trade programs create incentives for companies to invest in low-carbon technologies and penalize financially higher-emitting technologies through the use of tradable financial instruments called carbon offsets or carbon-allowance permits.

There are currently three cap-and-trade emissions systems in operation -- in the European Union, Switzerland and New Zealand -- and the system works by first setting a cap on allowable emissions and then distributing or auctioning off emissions allowances to participating companies that total the cap.

Extra allowances can then either be sold or "banked" for future use.

The current version of the still-circulating Boxer-Kerry bill is essentially a carbon-trading law designed to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020. The bill still needs to be approved by the Senate and follows in the footsteps of the House of Representatives-approved Waxman-Markley bill.

"If the Copenhagen meeting results in the U.S.'s adoption of the bill, it is highly likely that the global carbon market will start developing post 2012," said Zeinegul Hassan, Research Analyst for Frost & Sullivan, in reply to emailed questions. "A lot of companies are in a waiting position trying to understand what the post-2012 measures will be like."

Speculation suggests that the Senate could pass a climate bill as early as this coming spring or summer although no official timeframe has yet been set.

New Energy Finance, the group behind the $2 trillion 2020 forecast, think that the global carbon market will be worth around $122 billion by the end of 2009 -- a 3% increase on 2008.

But it is the European Union's emissions trading system that is responsible for the bulk of current trading, even as other regional markets are making inroads.

The European system accounts for 71% of current emissions traded and 83% of the total value traded.

With utilities and oil companies responsible for 40% of covered emissions under any U.S. cap-and-trade system they are often seen as the clear loser under any mandatory carbon trading program. Low-emitting power firms, by contrast, are often regarded as the winners.

The U.S. did increase its trading volume by 8% over the last quarter, but the subject is a controversial one in Washington and U.S. carbon trading is comprised of smaller, voluntary regional systems. See earlier story on Climate Exchange

"Carbon is fast emerging as a tradable commodity. The global carbon markets, however, are still maturing," said Thomas M. Joyce, CEO of Knight Capital Group.

South Korea, Japan and Australia have all recently moved to establish domestic policies and measures for carbon trading in their respective nations, but most analysts see a U.S. program as pivotal in turning carbon trading into a major asset class.

First in Class

While Copenhagen is not expected to offer carbon market investors substantial clarity with respect to pricing, timeframes or even mechanisms, "it has the ability to indicate a clear direction of travel for investors," said Abyd Karmali, global head of carbon markets at Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

The price of carbon has mostly stayed within the 12 to 15 euro-per-metric-ton range for the past year, which may reflect increasing consensus that a substantive climate deal in Copenhagen isn't likely.

But one variable that may offer additional clarity is emissions targets.

The U.S. unveiled specific mid-term emission-cut targets ahead of the conference in Copenhagen of 17% below 2005 levels, and China and India have also agreed to take action on energy efficiency and to limit "carbon intensity," their preferred emissions-reduction metric.

Emissions targets are currently driving the carbon price, according to Frost & Sullivan's Hassan, and therefore "higher [emissions-cutting] targets post 2012 will help to boost the price of carbon. With the higher prices, carbon trading will be more attractive and stimulate investment -- higher is better."

For the time being, however, carbon prices remain under pressure and a delay in clarifying how markets will operate post-2012 could further compound risk profiles.

"People are positioning themselves to be ready to move, but metrics in the market suggest people are also holding back," said Alessandro Vitelli, analyst at IDEAcarbon, in an interview.

"Conflicting influences are driving carbon prices sideways. There will be broad-brush agreements in Copenhagen but the details will have to wait for the U.S. legislative process to take shape."

"To become a major asset class, the carbon market needs an investment framework that channels private investment toward low-carbon energy infrastructure," said Natural Source's Forrister. "If a U.S. carbon trading law is delayed, then the international negotiations could also get bogged down. This could create a confusing scenario for market participants."

The fact that over 75% of S&P 500 companies failed to mention climate change in their annual reports between 1995 and the present, according to Point Carbon Research, also indicates that businesses have developed a wait-and-see attitude.

"U.S. firms are also grappling with budget cuts, low economic forecasts and large domestic policy uncertainty -- so few are active in purchasing offsets [the tradable financial instruments that underpin cap-and-trade systems]. They are getting smarter, getting organized and exploring compliance options. But the real action hasn't started for most U.S. companies,"said Forrister.

"It will take some time for carbon to become a new asset class in its own right given its young history. Carbon [has] suffered from very low volumes and limited investor appetite," said Bank of America Merrill Lynch's Karmali.

"However, by 2020 we expect to see a global carbon market that is at least one order of magnitude larger than it is today."

Kim Hjelmgaard is a MarketWatch editor based in London.

they are truly lunatics. astounding.

The real problem is di-hydrogen oxide! This heinous chemical was directly responsible for 3,582 deaths in 2005 in the United States alone. It can be found in every home and is widely used in industrial processes. Its use should be banned world wide!!!

Link: [link to www.cdc.gov]

So how much is the new Breathing Tax going to be.

Cause it's all about the dough ray me.

Oh yes... and Di-hydrogen oxide is far and away the most prevalent green house gas, composing nearly 93% of the total. We are truly doomed!!

We are so f'ed. What in the world can we do to stop the Marxist takeover. This has to be stopped and the a$$hole politicians just dont give a shit about what "we the people" want or think...