|
|
|
|
EPA Said “No.” Petitioners Respond.
- James Hansen: EPA could have started a rulemaking that included an across-the-board rising fee on CO2 pollution. . . a far more efficient method than expensive subsidies that add a debt burden for young people. Read More
- Donn Viviani: The Agency avoided the central question, Whether the risk imposed by GHG pollutants is unreasonable. Instead, EPA claimed that the IRA plus other current and intended actions are sufficient. But no one really believes that. Read More
- John Birks: While recent federal actions may slow, somewhat, additional GHG emissions, what is required is a substantial reduction in their [atmospheric] concentrations. Read More
- Richard Heede: EPA could have taken up the opportunity to fill in some of the gaps and offset the weakness. The IRA was virtually all carrots and no sticks, while our requested rulemaking under TSCA could have supplied the sticks. Read More
- Lise Van Susteren: I tried to impress upon the Agency that young people desperately need a stronger federal response to the crisis. There is still time, if only we retain the personal integrity to put aside politics and make young people our priority. Read More
- John Fitzgerald: Our Petition to phase out GHG pollution paved the straight-forward path, but “in this first go-round EPA nonetheless managed to lose its way. Still, we have options under the law to help them get back on track. Stay tuned.” Read More
|
|
|
|
At CPR Initiative, we believe our nation must lead the way, in deed as in word, towards a brighter future – one characterized by reason, justice, and the rule of law. That is why we have been hard at work fighting to Phase Out Greenhouse Gas Pollution to Restore a Stable & Healthy Climate. Please consider supporting this important work with your most generous, tax-deductible donation today. Together, we can do this. Thank you!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
