EPA Gas Emissions
EPA to Propose Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 17, 2009; 11:18 AM
The Environmental Protection Agency today plans to propose regulating greenhouse gas emissions on the grounds that these pollutants pose a danger to the public's health and welfare, according to several sources who asked not to be identified.
The move, coming almost exactly two years after the Supreme Court ordered the agency to examine whether emissions linked to climate change should be curbed under the Clean Air Act, would mark a major shift in the federal government's approach to global warming.
Former President George W. Bush and his deputies opposed putting mandatory limits on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases for years on the grounds that it would harm the economy; Congress is considering legislation that would do so but it remains unclear whether it can pass the proposal and enact it into law in the near future.
Late last month EPA sent the White House a formal finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare; the Office of Management and Budget signed off on the determination Monday.
When reached this morning, EPA spokesman Allyn Brooks-LaSure declined to comment on the matter.
President Obama pledged to limit greenhouse gases as a candidate, but has urged Congress to send him a bill that would cap them and allow emitters to trade pollution allowances nationwide. EPA administrator Lisa P. Jackson, in a speech at the Aspen Environment Forum last month, emphasized that the administration still hopes the country will develop a legislative answer to the question of how best to limit greenhouse gases.
"The best solution, and I believe this in my heart, is to work with Congress to form and pass comprehensive legislation to deal with climate change," Jackson said. " We hope to avert a regulatory thicket where governments and businesses spend an inordinate amount of time fighting. We are not looking for a doomsday solution."
According to a congressional aide who's been briefed on EPA's proposal, the agency indicates its preference for legislative action in the finding itself. But the endangerment finding also makes a broader case that the U.S. must act to limit greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, according to the aide, saying the science underlying its determination is "compelling and overwhelming."
The agency also is planning to include a "cause or contribute" finding for cars, which implies that not only are greenhouse gases dangerous in general, but that such emissions from cars and trucks are reasonably likely to contribute to climate change.
Some business groups, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have warned that if the federal government regulates carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act it will end up imposing an enormous regulatory burden on small operations such as individual stores and even some office buildings.
EPA must hold a 60-day public comment period before finalizing its finding, and it would then have to look at regulating individual sectors of the economy, such as motor vehicles and power plants. Those two sectors account for roughly half of the nation's carbon dioxide emissions.
In a teleconference with reporters this week David Doniger, policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate center, said he did not think the agency would target small emitters of greenhouse gases if it began regulating emissions under the nearly 40-year old Clean Air Act.
"That is just not true," said Doniger. "EPA is able to focus on the big stuff, the big sources of global warming pollution."
Even before the formal announcement, experts predicted the decision would transform the federal government's role in regulating commercial operations across the country. Roger Martella, who served as EPA's general counsel under Bush and is now a partner at the firm Sidley Austin in Washington, issued a statement saying, "The proposed endangerment finding marks the official beginning of an era of controlling carbon in the United States."
"This means that EPA's mission of environmental protection will burst outside those bounds and place it on the stage as one of the most influential regulators of both energy use and the greater economy in the upcoming year," Martella added. "The proposal, once finalized, will give EPA far more responsibility than addressing climate change. It effectively will assign EPA broad authority over the use and control of energy, in turn authorizing it to regulate virtually every sector of the economy."
Many opponents of regulating carbon dioxide will now turn their attention to Congress, hoping to achieve a more modest cap on greenhouse gases through the legislative process than one that could be imposed by the federal government.
Fred Singer, who heads the Arlington, Va.-based Science and Environmental Policy Project and has repeatedly questioned the idea that humans contribute to climate change, said in a statement that the EPA proposal "is based on shoddy science and would impose a huge economic burden on American households . . . Congress must stop this unwarranted action by means of legislation, but without committing the same errors as EPA."
Buck
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 17, 2009; 11:18 AM
The Environmental Protection Agency today plans to propose regulating greenhouse gas emissions on the grounds that these pollutants pose a danger to the public's health and welfare, according to several sources who asked not to be identified.
The move, coming almost exactly two years after the Supreme Court ordered the agency to examine whether emissions linked to climate change should be curbed under the Clean Air Act, would mark a major shift in the federal government's approach to global warming.
Former President George W. Bush and his deputies opposed putting mandatory limits on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases for years on the grounds that it would harm the economy; Congress is considering legislation that would do so but it remains unclear whether it can pass the proposal and enact it into law in the near future.
Late last month EPA sent the White House a formal finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare; the Office of Management and Budget signed off on the determination Monday.
When reached this morning, EPA spokesman Allyn Brooks-LaSure declined to comment on the matter.
President Obama pledged to limit greenhouse gases as a candidate, but has urged Congress to send him a bill that would cap them and allow emitters to trade pollution allowances nationwide. EPA administrator Lisa P. Jackson, in a speech at the Aspen Environment Forum last month, emphasized that the administration still hopes the country will develop a legislative answer to the question of how best to limit greenhouse gases.
"The best solution, and I believe this in my heart, is to work with Congress to form and pass comprehensive legislation to deal with climate change," Jackson said. " We hope to avert a regulatory thicket where governments and businesses spend an inordinate amount of time fighting. We are not looking for a doomsday solution."
According to a congressional aide who's been briefed on EPA's proposal, the agency indicates its preference for legislative action in the finding itself. But the endangerment finding also makes a broader case that the U.S. must act to limit greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, according to the aide, saying the science underlying its determination is "compelling and overwhelming."
The agency also is planning to include a "cause or contribute" finding for cars, which implies that not only are greenhouse gases dangerous in general, but that such emissions from cars and trucks are reasonably likely to contribute to climate change.
Some business groups, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have warned that if the federal government regulates carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act it will end up imposing an enormous regulatory burden on small operations such as individual stores and even some office buildings.
EPA must hold a 60-day public comment period before finalizing its finding, and it would then have to look at regulating individual sectors of the economy, such as motor vehicles and power plants. Those two sectors account for roughly half of the nation's carbon dioxide emissions.
In a teleconference with reporters this week David Doniger, policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate center, said he did not think the agency would target small emitters of greenhouse gases if it began regulating emissions under the nearly 40-year old Clean Air Act.
"That is just not true," said Doniger. "EPA is able to focus on the big stuff, the big sources of global warming pollution."
Even before the formal announcement, experts predicted the decision would transform the federal government's role in regulating commercial operations across the country. Roger Martella, who served as EPA's general counsel under Bush and is now a partner at the firm Sidley Austin in Washington, issued a statement saying, "The proposed endangerment finding marks the official beginning of an era of controlling carbon in the United States."
"This means that EPA's mission of environmental protection will burst outside those bounds and place it on the stage as one of the most influential regulators of both energy use and the greater economy in the upcoming year," Martella added. "The proposal, once finalized, will give EPA far more responsibility than addressing climate change. It effectively will assign EPA broad authority over the use and control of energy, in turn authorizing it to regulate virtually every sector of the economy."
Many opponents of regulating carbon dioxide will now turn their attention to Congress, hoping to achieve a more modest cap on greenhouse gases through the legislative process than one that could be imposed by the federal government.
Fred Singer, who heads the Arlington, Va.-based Science and Environmental Policy Project and has repeatedly questioned the idea that humans contribute to climate change, said in a statement that the EPA proposal "is based on shoddy science and would impose a huge economic burden on American households . . . Congress must stop this unwarranted action by means of legislation, but without committing the same errors as EPA."
Buck
Views: 21
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by The_Baron on -
And so begins the Obamba Administrations crusade to destroy our economy and way of life through cap and trade......
-
Permalink Reply by The_Baron on
-
Just wait till they want to regulate the CO2 emissions we exhale when we breathe.
-
Permalink Reply by w.r. frank on -
You are the worst with your big boastful challenges. James Hansen is a multiple degreed outstanding scientist recognized throughout the world as a leading authority on climate change and climate modeling. Astronomer indeed!
James E. Hansen (born March 29, 1941 in Denison, Iowa) heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, a part of the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, Earth Sciences Division. He has held this position since 1981. He is also an adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University.
After graduate school, Hansen continued his work with radiative transfer models and attempting to understand the Venusian atmosphere. This naturally led to the same computer codes in modified form being used to understand the Earth's atmosphere. He used these codes to study the effects that aerosols and trace gases have on the climate. Hansen has also contributed to the further understanding of the Earth's climate through the development and use of global climate models.
Hansen is best known for his research in the field of climatology, his testimony on climate change to congressional committees in 1988. that helped raise broad awareness of global warming, and his advocacy of action to limit the impacts of climate change.
Honors and awards
Hansen was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1996 for his "development of pioneering radiative transfer models and studies of planetary atmospheres; development of simplified and three-dimensional global climate models; explication of climate forcing mechanisms; analysis of current climate trends from observational data; and projections of anthropogenic impacts on the global climate system."[61] In 2001, he received a US$250,000 Heinz Environment Award for his research on global warming,[62] and was listed as one of Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People in 2006. Also in 2006, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) selected James Hansen to receive their Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility "for his courageous and steadfast advocacy in support of scientists' responsibilities to communicate their scientific opinions and findings openly and honestly on matters of public importance."[63]
In 2007, Hansen shared the US$1 million Dan David Prize for "achievements having an outstanding scientific, technological, cultural or social impact on our world". In 2008, he received the PNC Bank Common Wealth Award of Distinguished Service for his "outstanding achievements" in science. At the end of 2008, Hansen was named by EarthSky Communications and a panel of 600 scientist-advisors as the Scientist Communicator of the Year, citing him as an "outspoken authority on climate change" who had "best communicated with the public about vital science issues or concepts during 2008."[64]
In 2009, Hansen was awarded the 2009 Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal,[64] the highest honor bestowed by the American Meteorological Society, for his "outstanding contributions to climate modeling, understanding climate change forcings and sensitivity, and for clear communication of climate science in the public arena."[65]
-
Permalink Reply by w.r. frank on
-
I agree that is a waste of energy. There will always be skeptics and you should listen to them. Too me, it is a risk analysis. If there is even a 20% chance that CO2 of a man made origin will result in disaster to our planet, then we have a moral obligation to use resources to address the issue. I happen to be in the camp that the odds are higher. Robert would perhaps give it ZERO odds because he apparantly gets his info from one biased source.
-
Permalink Reply by w.r. frank on
-
Since you are just publishing links without comment, here area few more;
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,,25209167-1702,00.html
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,,25114040-5012321,00.html
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,,25114040-5012321,00.html
-
Permalink Reply by North LA on
-
We'll see what the study shows but the fact of the matter is it's irrelevent. There are too many people today who hear the word "science" or "journal article" and they take whatever follows those words as gospel truth. Yet most don't know elementary scientific method, simple statistics, nor know the difference between hypothesis, theory, or law. They just follow with blind faith.
I know you're a smart man Jim and I have a feeling your getting ready to ride this new cap and trade bubble that's coming for several million.
-
Permalink Reply by w.r. frank on
-
No. This is the opinion of a member of the AMS. Therefore, it is not what the AMS thinks of "my" Dr. Hansen.
I do not expect you to change you oinion. I am just tired of your boastful challenges and attacking of people. You clearly get most of your opinions from the Heartland Institute. You are entitled to do that and to have an opinion. Just don't attack Dr. Hansen as just an astonomer, Clearly, his academic credentials, professional career, and awards would indicate that his views should have a place at the table.
All of your reports come directly from the Heartland Institute so they will all be skeptical of the prevailing views on climate change. Here is the blurb on the upcoming conference at which your resources presented (all of whom have a right to their opinion, but they are only invited because their opinion agrees with the Heartland Institute's position):
" Second International Conference on Climate Change
The world’s largest-ever gathering of global warming skeptics assembled in New York City On March 8-10 to confront the issue, “Global warming: Was it ever really a crisis?”"
Notice the gathering is of "global warming skeptics."
-
Permalink Reply by w.r. frank on
-
Have you considered counseling? You clearly have some needs!
I completely respect the views of the educated people that work for Heartland (and they may be right). What I do not respect is a person like you who has a closed mind and just cuts and pastes opinion from biased idealogues.
My view is if there is a 50% chance your folks are right and a 50% chance my folks are right, then those are not good odds. If I had cancer (which I have had), I wouldn't like those odds.
Now to you own particularly assinine comments: I haven't looked at the people on the institute, but I accept them as serious--not that they mean crap to the earth. Do you really think that you, or me, or Newt, or Nancy, or Eric C. REALLY mean something to the earth?
I am not a mouthpiece for anybody. I speak for myself. I stand for what I stand and I am only one person out of 6 B on this earth. Every human being stands for something-what they personally believe in.
You are the worst f...king Joe McCarthy Luddite I have evcountered. Call me a liberal and say I stand for nothing. What the s..t does that mean. You know nothing about me. I may be more conservative than you--you don't know. You just don't agree with something that I post so I am a "liberal and stand for nothing." I can say for sure that I am more reasoned and balanced than you. I stand for something, which is a quest for reading and learning and trying to listen to the views of others.
You don't need my help? Great! Since I KNOW I will never change your opinions, then don't read my posts. I am glad you have lawyers! Is that a threat? What does that really mean? What do lawyers have to do with you not needing my help? What do lawyers have to do with your views on climate change, liberals, education?
The rest of your post is pure gibberish! My quest for truth will continue as science continues to advance from the known to the unknown to the new known. Unlike you, I am optimistic and believe that science will continue to explore and discover new truths than will benefit mankind. As always, there will be some that continue to believe the earth is flat!
All of life is about odds. Have you read the Black Swan? Supposedly, Wall Street was hedged against 95% of the events that could have imploded the system. Guess what! We hit the 5% and the system imploded.
Neither you nor I know what will happen regarding climate change. I gather your group says climate change is bunk so we do nothing. I say if there is even a 20% chance that my group is right, then we fix it for my gkids and yours.
-
Permalink Reply by w.r. frank on
-
Jim,
Here is the really good news! The administration (of which the EPA is only one small cog) is going to address energy, climate change and the economy. NOW! It won't be perfect because it can't address such enormous issues perfectly(as you or I or Robert or Al Gore or Ron Paul or Newt in our minds might). But rather than denying science or simply political sloganeering (try "drill baby drill"), hopefully there will be a compromise that addresses CO2, national security, economic growth and a planet that is fit for our gkids and ggkids to live on.
Thanks for your earlier advice. You are right, it really isn't worth the energy. Now I am retiring from the ghs wars to focus on a new unitization request on one tract and a drilling permit by one company on another tract that just had a unitization request from a competing company. After all wasn't that the purpose of ghs? The good news is all this can portend some actual wells; hopefully, when gas is $7.
Did you get the Duke University Report I put on your wall? Wasn't positive for NG vs. coal, but it was partially paid for by Duke Energy--either the number 1 or 2 polluter in America, almost all from coal.
-
Permalink Reply by w.r. frank on
-
Goodnight Robert. CO2 is really good in a diet coke. Actually, Jim said "a little whisky is good for you and a lot will kill you." He did not say, categorically, that whisky is bad for you. Careful reading of what the other person says is very important since you did say that, for once, you agreed with Jim.
I think I will have a whisky-one only!
Support GoHaynesvilleShale.com
Top Content
Not a member? Get our email.
Groups
-
San Augustine, TX
386 members
-
Miller County, Arkansas
27 members
-
Sabine Parish, LA
455 members
-
South Caddo Parish Group
440 members
-
Natchitoches Parish
400 members
-
Bienville Parish, LA
244 members
-
Fayetteville Shale
149 members
-
North Caddo Parish
358 members
-
Central Texas Gas
63 members
-
Cass County, TX
119 members
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
