We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Reid, like most Liberals, is trying to revise the racist history of the Democratic Party, and better yet, to transfer that history to the Republican Party. You would too if you had the racist history of the Democrats.
Regarding the takeover of the US government by the EPA, I'd recommend reading Gerald Warner in the UK Telegraph on Dec 8:
"Who needs tanks on the lawn when you have the Environmental Protection Agency? Barack Obama’s use of the EPA to pressurise the Senate to pass his climate change Nuremberg Decrees shows his dictatorial mentality. He wants to override Congress, which is hostile to his climate gobbledegook because it is representative of the American electorate, and sideline the nation’s elected Senators by ruling by decree, courtesy of the EPA. This is a coup d’état."
The nitrogen, N, in fertilizers does cause problems. In the soil it is fine but from there it gets into water and flows to lakes and oceans where it promotes plant growth far beyond natural limits.
The long term effects are not understood but are almost certainly harmful. And the use of artificial fertilizers with high amounts of N keeps growing all around the world.
I personally doubt there is much to the other cited effects, such as upon ozone.
The clear approach is to develop different fertilizers which reduce the runoff problem. That is a research problem not a reason for world-wide political control. But the latter is what we will get if governments can achieve it.
Letting the UN or some other world agency take on the N problem will lead to nothing except huge numbers of bureaucrats devouring high salaries and expenses for a decade. And universities will ask for and get new, hundred-million-dollar labs to study it all.
After a decade the new masters of nitrogen will issue a report saying matters are dire. And "May we have some more, Sir? Much more, Sir"
The article pretty much hits the nail on the head. Everyone quoted wants a deal like the IPCC and governments gave to those saying CO2 doomed us all.
That is, they want twenty years of funding with no serous questions asked.
Notice they use the term "climate abatement."
i.e. a climate itself is bad and must be constrained.
Obama-mao merely took a page out of Bill Clinton's playbook...He became a chameleon before the very eyes of the Noble committee by endorsing George Bush's wars and America's just military interventions of the last century. The world's liberal elite were left stunned and even disappointed I'm sure...And rightfully so...I mean, this is their man who preached the evil of George Bush's war on terrorism for years. He listened to and endorsed the America hating racist Rev. Wright for decades. He spent a large part of his first year as President apologizing to the world for supposed wrongs committed by his own country. And, now he decides to turn hawkish in his Nobel acceptance speech...I'm not surprised and I do not believe Barack Obama for a second. He is a true scoundrel who has now proven to the world that he will say anything to satisfy an audience. Obama's speech in Oslo was meant for his own country where surprise surprise his poll number have dropped like a safe pushed out of a second story window. He decided that shoring up his military's morale and showing a kinship with his own country for a change trumped the audience of Nobel groupies...Why? It's the poll numbers of course!
It's amusing when even fertilizers aren't green...runoff is a valid issue. Effective fertilizers with less runoff would surely be a good thing and probably less costly, so easier to use in the nations that need them most. I think you're right about the atmospheric implications. The atmosphere is muy, muy large and 79% of it is N2. I doubt that humans can produce enough N, and that it remains in that form very long, to cause significant atmospheric changes.