If you can get this link on Alternet and Indymedia then it might help a lot. People need to get angry, not sign bits of paper or, worse, tick electronic boxes.

With cap and trade blown apart in the Senate, the White House has chosen to impose taxes and regulation across the entire economy under clean-air laws that were written decades ago and were never meant to apply to carbon. With this doomsday machine activated, Mr. Obama hopes to accomplish what persuasion and debate among his own party manifestly cannot.

OpinionJournal Related Stories:
The ‘Absurd Results’ Doctrine
Terms of Endangerment
Reckless Endangerment
Obama’s Carbon Ultimatum
.This reckless “endangerment finding” is a political ultimatum: The many Democrats wary of levelling huge new costs on their constituents must surrender, or else the EPA’s carbon police will inflict even worse consequences.

The gambit is also meant to coerce businesses, on the theory that they’ll beg for cap and trade once the command-and-control regulatory pain grows too acute—not to mention the extra bribes in the form of valuable carbon permits that Democrats, since you ask, are happy to dispense. Ms. Jackson appealed to “the science” and waved off any political implications, yet the formal finding was not coincidentally announced at the start of the U.N.’s Copenhagen climate conference (see above).

This ruling has been inevitable since at least April and we warned about it during Mr. Obama’s campaign, but its cynicism and willfulness still astonish. The political threat is so potent precisely because invoking a faulty interpretation of the 1970 Clean Air Act will expose hundreds of thousands of “major” sources of emissions that produce more than 250 tons of an air pollutant in a year to the EPA’s costly and onerous review process. This threshold might be reasonable for traditional “dirty” pollutants (such as NOX) but it makes no sense for ubiquitous carbon, which is the byproduct of almost all types of economic production.

The White House knows this, which is why earlier this fall Ms. Jackson announced a “tailoring rule” that limits this regulation to sources that emit more than 25,000 or more tons a year like coal-fired power plants and heavy manufacturing. Ms. Jackson claims this unilateral rewrite of a statute is a concession, but its real purpose is to dodge a political backlash while still preserving the EPA’s ability to threaten business and recalcitrant Democrats.

For now, this decision moves into the courts, and years if not decades of litigation. Yet the decision really is historic: The White House has opened a Pandora’s box that will be difficult to close, that is breathtakingly undemocratic, and that the country, if not liberal politicians, will come to regret.

[Yeah, rony, love your "With this doomsday machine activated" - really makes carbon sound like the unimportant thing it is. Now back to reality - you basically don't want to hurt the wonderful capital economy that makes the American Dream possible: correction, the "New American Dream", the one that's satisfied by sitting in front of a f***-off 60" plasma with the air con going and the 4x4 on the drive that you can jump in any time you want to go 100 yards to the shops to buy one of 200 different types of potato chip. Sounds like a nightmare to me; and one that might just be dented a bit by the EPA change ]

[Please quote these emails and state how important the data is]

Carbon is necessary for life. Asserting “room full” is just
plain silly for hundreds of reasons

[I only want twelve of these reasons for now]

Excessive radiation is another canard. Radiation does NOT
accumulate.

[Please stand beside a uranium rod then]

No dispute that Al Gore makes hundreds of millions of dollars
providing nothing but fear. Careful about GE. They are broke
and can only survive with “green energy” dictates.

[Hundreds of millions; I'm still waiting for the audited accounts. GE latest profit, October 16: $2.45 billion]

Nice to hear finally that Keith admits the “raw date” is incomplete
If he taught anything it helps explain the spread of misinformation
that has happened throughout our education system.

[Of course it's incomplete, how can you collect *all* the data?!]

[Jim, you need to substantiate this with something more than speculation: saying "It is well established" doesn't make something true. "It is well established that AZT causes AIDS", is something certain alternative-remedy suppliers would love people to believe, but the "establishment" is only in their heads.]

Naomi Nue can’t seem to distinguish between global
warming and the foul air caused by smog. No one
advocates all the chemical compounds released in the
air be increased. Carbon which is the focus of global
warming is the substance of life.

[That's the CEI line - "we call it life" - to which I respond, "So go and stand in a room full of carbon dioxide."]

You want a reliable non polluting source of energy?
Nuclear is your answer but the “greens” can’t stomach
that truth. They have a different agenda.

[Depends what you mean by "non polluting" - is excessive radiation not pollution, then?]

Naoomi and I do agree on one proposition. Al Gore heads
an evil corporation that makes huge sums off of the
unitiated.

[What are his audited tax returns compared to, say Exxon, DuPont, Duke Energy, GE etc?]

By the way Naomi you didn’t list the awful effects of being
in the path of a recent hurricanes. I guess you know the season
just ended and none of the hurricanes reached our coast. Let’s
give credit to the global cooling that has been happening
over the last 10 years that can be credited for reducing this
danger.

[Or you could just listen to the majority of climate scientists who said (after Katrina) that they could not put hurricane increases down to global warming just yet, because there are not enough data points to correlate weather events accurately with global warming. Also, bear in mind, that local conditions are far more important for weather events over the short term - it helps having taught meteorology ]

To those who question the validity of of global-warming: wake up. The evidence is overwhelming and the window for research grows smaller with each day. There is no need to live in smog-filled cities any more, we have evolved beyond the murky past of the industrial age when even air was sacrificed for money. Who can even entertain the possibility of drought and floods? It’s not necessary, everything we need for a clean life is within reach. Green is the best possible future anyone could wish for.

How very silly.