Comments on: Congressional Insiders Forsee Incremental Change http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5100 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: John F. Pittman http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5100&cpage=1#comment-13223 John F. Pittman Sat, 04 Apr 2009 12:44:29 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5100#comment-13223 http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE52M4JB20090324 is an article claiming the EPA has found "harm" by manmade greenhouse gases. I would agree that the proposed mandatory emission submittals would fit the bill. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE52M4JB20090324 is an article claiming the EPA has found “harm” by manmade greenhouse gases. I would agree that the proposed mandatory emission submittals would fit the bill. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html

]]> By: Maurice Garoutte http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5100&cpage=1#comment-13213 Maurice Garoutte Fri, 03 Apr 2009 18:24:11 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5100#comment-13213 Since the question included the limitation of “in this Congress “the poll does not cover the possibility of action through the regulatory process. The EPA has decided that CO2 is a pollutant subject to regulation. Would that qualify as “sweeping change” cloaked as “incremental regulation”? Since the question included the limitation of “in this Congress “the poll does not cover the possibility of action through the regulatory process. The EPA has decided that CO2 is a pollutant subject to regulation.

Would that qualify as “sweeping change” cloaked as “incremental regulation”?

]]>