In what could be one of the most significant regulatory changes since its founding, the EPA has moved toward imposing limits on greenhouse gases with a finding that such gases now present a “serious problem . . . for future generations.” The move could have widespread environmental benefits apart from climate change in forcing more fuel efficient cars and greater limitations on power plants and industrial sources.
The EPA finding of endangerment prepares allows for the EPA to act if Congress fails to do so. The finding will unite powerful industry lobby groups for utilities, car manufacturers and others in seeking to delay or stop the change. More worrisome is the fact that such regulations take a ridiculously long time — even without such concerting opposition. That would mean that the new Administration could easily stop the process. The Bush Administration previously opposed moved to use the Clean Air At to address climate change, but the Supreme Court found that such regulations is allowed — requiring, however, the “endangerment finding” issued by the EPA.
Here is the release from the EPA:
WASHINGTON – On January 1, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will, for the first time, require large emitters of heat-trapping emissions to begin collecting greenhouse gas (GHG) data under a new reporting system. This new program will cover approximately 85 percent of the nation’s GHG emissions and apply to roughly 10,000 facilities.
“This is a major step forward in our effort to address the greenhouse gases polluting our skies,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “For the first time, we begin collecting data from the largest facilities in this country, ones that account for approximately 85 percent of the total U.S. emissions. The American public, and industry itself, will finally gain critically important knowledge and with this information we can determine how best to reduce those emissions.”
EPA’s new reporting system will provide a better understanding of where GHGs are coming from and will guide development of the best possible policies and programs to reduce emissions. The data will also allow businesses to track their own emissions, compare them to similar facilities, and provide assistance in identifying cost effective ways to reduce emissions in the future. This comprehensive, nationwide emissions data will help in the fight against climate change.
Greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide, are produced by burning fossil fuels and through industrial and biological processes. Fossil fuel and industrial GHG suppliers, motor vehicle and engine manufacturers, and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more of CO2 equivalent per year will be required to report GHG emissions data to EPA annually. This threshold is equivalent to about the annual GHG emissions from 4,600 passenger vehicles.
The first annual reports for the largest emitting facilities, covering calendar year 2010, will be submitted to EPA in 2011. Vehicle and engine manufacturers outside of the light-duty sector will begin phasing in GHG reporting with model year 2011. Some source categories included in the proposed rule are still under review.
More information on the new reporting system and reporting requirements: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html
It is a great holiday gift for environmentalists and public health advocates. It is a particularly wonderful gift for our children who will bear the costs of these pollutants to a greater degree than ourselves.
Source:PhySorg
Dr. Slarti I can give you at least 6 more examples around the world where wind farms are being canceled.
I would do this for you but most of the stuff I link to is easily debunked by you and others.
Too expensive, DOES NOT create enough electricity vs cost, all to fix a non existent problem.
Dr. Slarti I can give you at least 6 more examples around the world where wind farms are being canceled. I can also show you that a federal judge has temporarily suspended a California wind farm project.
The problem is Dr. Slarti is the millions of birds that are being killed every year by the windfarms that are currently operational.
In a sign of the difficulties facing the development of wind energy, the legendary Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens is suspending plans to build the world’s largest wind farm.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/business/energy-environment/08wind.html
How much money did he spend? As Kenny Rogers use ta sang
You got to know when to hold’ em
Know when to fold’em
Know when ta walk away
Know when ta run
Bdaman said:
“Everyone is abandoning the green technology especially wind farms.”
I doubt this, but if it is true, it would be apropos of the shortsighted stupidity that has been repeatedly displayed by American businesses over the last few decades…
I’m less concerned about whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas (it is) and more concerned that this gives the EPA unprecedented control over our lives.
In England and in Europe starting in five days they are going to start paying increased fees for electricity. Why? Global Warming.
In the U.S. by summer, if not sooner you will see your electricity rates go up.
do you want India and China to become the world leaders in developing and producing green technology and manufacturing methods?
Everyone is abandoning the green technology especially wind farms.
Pete,
While Congress (the House) can refuse to appropriate additional funds, they cannot stop the EPA from using the budget they already have to implement these policies – I agree that the Republicans cutting funding could reduce their effectiveness, but I believe the EPA can still do a lot of good…
savaship,
No one is saying that the global temperature and climate don’t fluctuate naturally (that I know of, anyway…), just that it is undeniable that human pollution is affecting the environment and there are signs that the fluctuations in worldwide climate are growing larger (or didn’t you read all of the stories that Bdaman has posted about unusually extreme weather?). As I have said repeatedly here before, dealing with pollution is one of the most important issues facing us today and it’s only going to get worse if we don’t start dealing with it. Even if anthropomorphic global warming turns out to be totally false, controlling carbon emissions is a first step towards solving our pollution issues and good economic policy as well – or do you want India and China to become the world leaders in developing and producing green technology and manufacturing methods?
I’m less concerned about whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas (it is) and more concerned that this gives the EPA unprecedented control over our lives. Technically, they just gave themselves the authority to order people to stop breathing out so much.
Of course, on the flip side the EPA has also been historically ignored by industry. This new ability is also bad in that respect: I picture existing regulations being ignored on the grounds that “this chemical probably isn’t that serious; they say CO2 is toxic for crying out loud!”
yes, the earths temp does naturally fluctuate, but the loss of sea ice and the temp rise at the artic is outside the normal range.
i’m not a meteorologist and don’t play one on tv and didn’t even stay at a holiday inn express last night. what i am is an automotive master tech (retired) and i know what and how much comes out of the tailpipes of autos. you can’t keep pulling that much carbon out of the ground and pumping it into the atmosphere without consequences.
that bill is coming due
Here in Chemical Valley along the Ohio river and next door in coal country West Virginia, this will be greeted like the plague.
Already we’re seeing TV advertisements about the bounty about to be ours due to the wonders of the Marcellus shale formation (which seems to be under all of WV, most of PA and some of NY). And all the work it will provide while we give Mother Earth a toxic enema to retrieve it (fracking).
http://www.marcellus-shale.us/Marcellus_FRAC.htm
If the EPA would jump on this quickly, we might save several states from devastation.
Pete, for the record, I am not a climate change denier. I simply know the temperature of the earth fluctuate naturally, and refuse to jump on any alarmist bandwagons that blame man made CO2. I also am not convinced our CO2 level readings are accurate due to our primary data source since the 1960’s being in the middle of some of the warmest waters in the pacific ocean (warm oceans release CO2) on top of a friggin’ volcano! So in short, Yes, the climate is changing, as there hasn’t been a single point in history where it hasn’t been in flux, but I am not willing to blame CO2 emissions from factories and cars without more data, and I certainly don’t support restrictions that cost Americans jobs and money based on this politically motivated junk science.
hate to say it but with the bunch moving into washington next month i wouldn’t count on any of this being implemented.
just think about what kind of mpg you’d be getting if carter had won in 80 instead of rr.
i was going to reply to savaship but why bother. not trying to argue with climite change deniers should help lower co emissions.
This is terrible news! Step one, decree a normal atmospheric gas a “pollutant”. Step 2 Gather scientific evidence for a pre determined conclusion, ignoring, or suppressing evidence that points to the contrary, this is NOT science, nor should it be considered factual unless peer reviewed without any significant variation of opinions by many different scientists. Step 3 Corruption… pass laws to force industry to comply with an expensive reduction of this gas “proven” to be a “pollutant” Anytime laws are passed or “regulations” in the form of restrictions, everyone loses just a little more.
In this case the loss is definitely in the form of manufacturing and production businesses moving to less restrictive countries, costing Americans countless jobs and growth opportunities. We now have less people employed in manufacturing than we had in over 60 years, and we have lost over 40,000 factories in the last 10 years[1]. It was predicted that America would lose half a million manufacturing jobs in 2010 alone[2], from the last report that held true[3].
Before hailing this as a great victory for “the Children” ask yourself these simple questions… If everything gets manufactured out of the country, how long will it take before America simply has no more money[4]? Where are they going to work, and how will they get there? Finally, what are they going to eat[5] and how will they afford it[6]?
[1] http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_plight_of_american_manufacturing
[2]http://www.epi.org/page/-/pdf/ib283.pdf
[3]http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
[4]http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/10-reasons-why-conservatives-should-be-against-unfair-trade-with-china-and-10-reasons-why-liberals-should-be-against-unfair-trade-with-china
[5]http://www.berkeleybioeconomy.com/wp-content/uploads//2010/07/Rupa_Deshmukh_Berkeley2010.pdf
[6]http://www.businessinsider.com/how-hyperinflation-will-happen-in-america-2010-9
This is great news. Hopefully we will continue to see this kind of action from cabinet members more frequently in the second half of President Obama’s term…
Good news, indeed…
Great news for the country and a Great job by one of my states residents for the EPA,although the incoming party don’t think so.
November’s broad election gains for House and Senate Republicans do not equal a mandate to roll back hard-won protections for the environment, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson said Friday (Dec. 3) at Harvard Law School (HLS).
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/12/the-epa-at-40/
It’s good news for all, not just some imaginary group of “environmentalists”. We all share the planet, there isn’t a separate environment where those involved in environment-endangering industries go home to live in at night and at weekends.
The Supreme Court, recall, *required* the EPA to investigate the risk to the environment posed by greenhouse gases, and to take action under the Clean Air Act if the risk merited it. That was around five years ago. Last year after exhaustive investigation they issued an endangerment finding and then conducted the statutory consultation. This is the next stage. This has been building for a long time and is likely to start biting finally in due course. The courts aren’t likely to slow this down any more in my opinion, that’s been tried but we still got here.