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
Herman said:
Slartibartfast:
I am a fool, that is why I am a hermit.
That chilling effect is Anthropogenic Global Warming, you know the green house gases they want to regulate. Doesnt the EPA want to tax carbon?
Too stupid to realize? WTF? Thank you for that warm welcome of an opposing view. 🙂 It is so nice to see that good manners are still practiced on the internet.
I dont pollute do you? Why would you think a company would? Dont trust people to be good stewards?
Herman the Hermit said:
Herman the Hermit,
At least your avatar is cool …
Tootie:
I agree, get rid of it. It is BS and does nothing but cause problems.
Arsenic occurs naturally in water and apparently Cr(+6) is a problem when inhaled although I wouldnt want to drink it. The EPA is currently up and running and so is OSHA and we still have arsenic and Cr in the water.
Seems to me they arent doing anything now so why not get rid of them? Why are we wasting money on failed institutions?
Tootie said:
“Get rid of the EPA. No constitutional authority for it. Completely unnecessary.”
This is a completely ignorant statement, but if you’d like we could put hexavalent chromium and arsenic into your water, pump smog into your home and fertilize your lawn with dioxins so you can pretend that there is no EPA…
Get rid of the EPA. No constitutional authority for it. Completely unnecessary.
Also if you ski you should take advantage of the snow right now because,
“From the European Alps to the Asian Himalayas, the US Rockies and the Central American Andes, global warming means milder winters and less snowfall”, the petition said. “Ice and snow are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of global warming, and as avid skiers and snowboarders we see our beloved sports endangered.”
Please sign the petition as the signatories demand.
http://wwf.panda.org/who_we_are/wwf_offices/poland/?151921/Ski-champions-demand-climate-action-in-Poznan
For everyone that has been paralyzed by the Blizzard.
CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts, Global warming will cause major changes to the climate of the U.S. Northeast if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced, scientists said today.
Warmer annual temperatures, less snow, more frequent droughts and more extreme rainstorms are expected if current warming trends continue, the scientists said in a new study, and time is running out for action to avoid such changes to the climate.
The Northeast’s climate is already changing, the report said, as spring is arriving sooner, summers are hotter and winters are warmer and less snowy.
Annual temperatures across the nine states of the Northeast have risen more than 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since 1970. Winter temperatures, however, have risen much faster – about 3.8 degrees since 1970.
The report sounds a warning for Northeastern states to act quickly or prepare for a far different climate.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2006/2006-10-04-03.asp
Nicely put Pete. My point was that regardless of Clean Coal, the coal has to be stripped from the earth first which in itself is not a clean process.
clean coal is just prosessing the coal before burning or scrubbers in the stacks to remove sulfer,mercury, and other heavy metals and impurities.
using coal, petroleum, or natural gas is still oxigenating (breaking up) carbon molecules to release energy (heat) to boil water to turn a turbine or push a piston to turn a shaft.
what comes out of the tailpipe or smokestack is still co or co2 which is still released in to the atmosphere. collecting the carbon at this point would cost more energy than was produced by burning it.
there will be no one size fits all answer for where tomorrows energy comes from. nuclear will run out soon if used the way we have coal in power generation, windmills won’t work if the wind doesn’t blow and solar panels don’t work in the dark.
Here’s a good article
British wildlife benefits from return to ‘traditional’ seasonal weather
Conservationists express relief as insects, birds and other wildlife flourish because of cold winter and decent summer
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/27/british-wildlife-benefits-traditional-seasons
Apparently global warming has made the weather like it used to be before global warming. In other words increasing CO2 levels have had no effect on the climate.
I’d be very interested in others opinions on the article.
Mine is what ever is happening. Too hot, too cold, too wet, too dry,ect ect, it’s global warming. They have explained why, even though it’s not factual why the Northern Hemi is so cold, ie. snow in Siberia and the Jet Stream blocking High Pressure. But what they can’t explain is why in the middle of summer is it snowing in Australia and why the Antarctic Sea Ice just set an all time record.
All,
There was an interesting article in the New York Times today … written by Judah Cohen and entitled “Bundle Up, It’s Global Warming” (in the Sunday Opinion section).
It concerns the snow in Siberia and the Jet Stream etc.
I’d be very interested in others opinions on the article.
Clean coal does not solve the problem of CO2 emissions. It is preferable to the use of old very polluting coal plants.
Yes we have already discussed that. I have seen it in real life in my travels. We are destroying the planet but not because of CO2. All the money that has been spent over the last forty years on this non exsistant problem could have been used to solve alot of real world problems. Thats what pisses me off the most. Look at the amount of money T Boone just lost. Do you realize how many lives in third world countries could have been made better, how many starving children could have gone to bed with food in their stomach?
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
Dr. Slarti from you, that is the wrong answer. It’s not a matter of how clean it burns but the process in which it is obtained.
Bdaman,
Do you believe that humanity has a significant impact on the climate? (or the environment in general?)