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 if you think about what I said it’s kinda the truth, remember I’m with the party of no. 🙂
Bdaman,
I’d have to take a closer look at clean coal before I gave an opinion, but I’m somewhat dubious – on the other hand, it is entirely possible that China is building cleaner coal plants… (I have no problem believing that coal plant emissions can be reduced by more efficient technology, however I would need to see evidence to back up a claim that emissions could be reduced drastically). In any case, the policy I’m advocating (taxing pollution) would give the biggest economic advantage to the most efficient green methods – regardless of what the specific methods were. The pollution subsidy is what makes burning oil and coal for energy obscenely profitable – aren’t you for the free market?
Your not lazy and honestly I don’t know what the answers are.
What I do know is the globe is not warming due to CO2, it’s not getting colder because of CO2 but it is getting colder.
Little FYI for you. It snowed in Florida today. Thats twice in 2010
Bdaman,
And right back at you – just trying not to waste too much time on your crap. I’m not mad at you, it’s just easier to take a shot (which you left yourself wide open for) than to substantively refute everything you post, and I’m lazy…
Swathmore Mom said
China is building newer clean coal plants.
What do you think about that Dr. Slarti? Is there anything clean about coal?
Just messin with you, givin you shit. Don’t get all bent out of shape.
Bdaman said:
“I’m for everything your[sic] not.”
What a stupid thing to say – it’s sad that you are unable to think for yourself enough to make up your own mind about what to believe.
http://www.grist.org/article/2010-08-30-attention-congress-china-is-shutting-down-old-coal-plants/ China is building newer clean coal plants.
T. Boone has decided on a more lucrative project.
This past week, MSNBC reported that oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens, author of the“Pickens Plan” – to switch America heavily into natural gas and wind power, plus energy efficiency and solar, primarily for national security and economic reasons – is dropping the wind component from the plan. According to the MSNBC report, Pickens will now “focus primarily on his other big business interest: natural gas.”
….
Why the change? What’s different and what’s the same since Pickens ran his TV ads?
•The legislation for both an RES and also a so-called “Clean Energy Standard”(CES) stalled.
•The coal and oil industries used the Citizens United decision to buy a Congress filled with people who are either proudly dumb (Rep. John Shimkus of Illinois actually quoted Genesis at a hearing of the U.S. House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment as “evidence” that climate change is not a problem, since ‘The Earth will end only when God declares it’s time to be over”) or who are too bought to worry that China is aggressively promoting its clean energy industry and its domestic clean energy market
•The need for an upgrade to the stayed the same, and that upgrade will still require an enormous investment.
•We sent the same or more oil money to foreign dictators who hate America.
•But, the natural gas industry decided it could get away with contaminating America’s water supplies through fracking and wouldn’t get caught until it was far too late.
It’s hard to say what drove Pickens to change, but it’s also hard to get past the sense that he wasn’t really sincere when he said the Pickens Plan wasn’t about him making money: “I’m 80 years old and have $4 billion. I don’t need any more money.”
http://www.desmogblog.com/t-boone%E2%80%99s-flip-flop-wind-need-res-grid-upgrades-and-memo-gas-industry-fracking-dead-end
“I’m 80 years old and have $4 billion. I don’t need any more money.”
Ya, you betcha!
Also, what you cite shows that we need to subsidize wind power – changing the economics of it so the technology will be developed to the point where it is cost effective.
Need to talk to France and Spain about that. They just canceled subsidies.
I don’t seem to be for anything?
I’m for everything your not.
instead of spamming threads with links that generally fail to provide evidence refuting the theories that you are against
If you say so
Bdaman,
You’ve never answered my assertion that green policies are environmentally and economically desirable EVEN IF WHAT YOU SAY ANTHROPOMORPHIC GLOBAL WARMING IS TRUE. Green policies address an urgent problem of critical importance regardless. Or maybe you’d rather drown in your own waste?
Also, what you cite shows that we need to subsidize wind power – changing the economics of it so the technology will be developed to the point where it is cost effective. What’s your energy plan? To use coal and oil until we run out (and can’t make any more plastic…) or reach some sort of environmental tipping point? I’d respect you a lot more if you were advocating some kind of plan or idea as to how we should deal with the issues instead of spamming threads with links that generally fail to provide evidence refuting the theories that you are against (you don’t seem to be FOR anything…).
Swathmore Mom how many coal fire plants is China currently building? Compare that to the link you provided and tell me which will out weigh the other.
T.Boone Pickens has a huge investment in natural gas.
Yes he does but look how much he lost in his wind farm project.
That was alot of money. Enough that alot of children could have been, fed,clothed and immunized.
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/12/chinas-growing-confidence-in-its-emerging-renewable-energy-leadership
Dr Slarti please don’t shoot the messenger. I am only telling you what environmentalist are saying.
T.Boone Pickens has a huge investment in natural gas, and that is what he is currently pushing.
During the cold snap in the United Kingdom, the 3,149 UK wind turbines were nearly useless. At times delivering less than half of a percent of the UK’s electricity needs.
Maybe 1,000,000 wind turbines would do the job, as long as there aren’t any calm days?
Would there be any birds or tourists left in the UK? Probably not.
http://www.bwea.com/ukwed/index.asp
http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm
Bdaman,
So should we get rid of windows, too? (100 to 900+ million bird deaths a year are due to windows…)(100 to 900+ million bird deaths a year are due to windows…) Not giving appropriate context is a form of intellectual dishonesty…
http://www.allgov.com/Where_is_the_Money_Going/ViewNews/Energy_Dept_Approves_1_3_Billion_Dollar_Loan_for_Worlds_Largest_Wind_Farm_101226