EPA expected to act on CO2 emissions
By Eoin O'Carroll | 02.20.09
The US Environmental Protection Agency is expected to take its first steps toward regulating emissions of carbon dioxide, the New York Times reported Wednesday.
In an interview with the Times, Lisa Jackson, the new EPA administrator, said that she has asked her staff to prepare documentation for an “endangerment finding” under the Clean Air Act, to determine whether or not carbon dioxide is a pollutant that poses a threat to public health and welfare. On April 2, 2007, the US Supreme Court found that the agency must make such a determination, a ruling that the Bush administration ignored.
If the EPA issues regulations under the Clean Air Act, the effect would be sweeping, writes the Times’s John M. Broder:
The decision, which most likely would play out in stages over a period of months, would have a profound impact on transportation, manufacturing costs and how utilities generate power. It could accelerate the progress of energy and climate change legislation in Congress and form a basis for the United States’ negotiating position at United Nations climate talks set for December in Copenhagen.
But as even ardent environmentalists have pointed out, attempting to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act as it is currently written would be, to put it bluntly, insane. Writing in the online eco-mag Grist, David Roberts notes that the 40-year-old act was never designed to regulate a global pollutant like carbon dioxide.
What’s more, the act regulates any stationary source emitting more than 250 tons annually of a declared pollutant. That’s a lot if you’re talking about nitrogen oxides. But 250 tons of CO2 is only slightly more than the annual output of a dozen average Americans. That would mean the EPA would be requiring pollution-control technology for not just power plants and factories, but also schools, hospitals, churches, bakeries, and who knows what else, creating what Mr. Roberts calls “an unholy mess.”
Is this what we should expect? Roberts writes:
If a certain method of regulating CO2 under the Clean Air Act would produce a situation in which the EPA has literally unlimited power over the US economy, virtually every building and business in the US is forced to apply for air pollution permits, and some pollutants are being mandated and prohibited simultaneously … then the EPA probably won’t use that method.
Such is my naive faith in government.
Some speculate that Ms. Jackson’s decision to move ahead with CO2 rules is really an attempt to pressure big business and Congressional Republicans to accept cap-and-trade legislation. Brad Plumer, The New Republic’s enviro-blogger, thinks this is the case, and says so in this video. Keith Johnson, Mr. Plumer’s counterpart at the Wall Street Journal, sums up this line of reasoning:
<< US considers pika protection due to warming | MainThe argument basically goes like this: If skeptics of government action on climate change think a watered-down piece of legislation will be a threat to their current business, just wait until the EPA starts regulating emissions from autos, homes, businesses, and factories.
Comments
2. Jerry Lee Mayeux | 02.27.09
Consider the Connection to:
Wise-use
In the future economic survival WILL depend on a GREEN economy, (meaning CONSERVATION the wise-use, management, and development of the Earths natural
resources, including the responsible (wise-use) of our childrens money).
Please visit: http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com
screen name CTC123 PROFILE-PHOTOS-BLOG-COMMENTS
3. Aaron Herman | 03.02.09
Wise use? So we’re going to be taxed on what we breath out. Wise use is AKA increased tax reform. Our children’s money? What planet are you from. On planet Earth we just passed some of the biggest “stimulus” Bills Ever! Only in America can you have a Global Warming Rally in a snowstorm. Genius!
4. Morgan Duke | 03.24.09
That is the most insane thing written on this website. Looking at the global picture, stabilizing our carbon dioxide emissions is probably one on the most important things we should be spending our tax money on. If the earths overall temperature continues to rise, and the rate of temperature is measured on a bigger scale than day to day basis, humans will no longer inhabit the earth. But, I am sure some would rather our tax money go to inhabiting other countries and blowing others up.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Sean Wise | 02.20.09
Isn’t that great. It used to be that administrations would do everything they can to bolster the American economy. This administraion instead is using CO2 to play chicken, betting that its better to accept being crippled over dying.