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,
That one sentence jumped out at me – I could have added more, but didn’t care to waste the time. I thought that the sentence I quoted was indicative of Mr. Fumento’s viewpoint. I think it shows that he sees the massive pollution subsidy* that corporations receive as an entitlement – a blind spot which invalidates his analysis.
*I’m using the term ‘pollution subsidy’ to describe the cost of the damage done to the environment.
As for Bdaman, quantity does not equal quality and the signal to noise ratio in his posts is very low. Plus he has issues with relevance – like not being able to understand that record cold weather is evidence against his point of view rather than for it…
Bdaman,
Why don’t you demonstrate your intellectual integrity by debunking the video you posted yourself? As for wind power not being efficient enough – that’s the whole point of subsidizing it! We should subsidize alternative energy sources in order to encourage investment in the technology so it improves to the point where it can compete on its own. Remember that these forms of energy must compete with the existing energy companies which currently enjoy the pollution subsidy – merely eliminating that would level the playing field and go a long way towards making alternative energy competitive. Additionally, investment in Green R&D would help accelerate the process (since you wouldn’t want to institute an immediate tax on the full cost of pollution, this would be a way to help make things fair until the full pollution subsidy could be eliminated. If I am dismissive of you at times, it is because you have been completely unwilling (most likely because you are unable) to address this type of argument (which asserts the desirability of pollution control policy regardless of whether or not your assertions are true.
Here’s more Herman
Did your central heating break down in the big freeze? Here’s why…
Five years ago, New Labour heralded them as the modern, clean and green way to heat your house. As a result, today there are already eight million ‘condensing boilers’ in homes across Britain. In fact, since 2005 it is illegal to fit any other kind.
‘It is a massive problem. Some customers were ready to move out because their condensing boilers broke. If I had a choice, I’d put in a non-condensing boiler every time.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1342357/Central-heating-break-big-freeze-Heres-.html#ixzz19Wwz6A5c
yes Bdaman, the lawyers have now started suing garbage because it is being changed into charcoal.
Bdaman:
yes why don’t we ask T. Boone.
you crack me up. Have you seen that video Con of the Wind?
Wind power is bullshit just like solar power. Most ideas that come from this “green revolution” are nothing but bullshit.
Although I saw a good one the other night, they were suing garbage to create soil. You burn organics in a low oxygen environment and get a charcoal material which you mix with soil to increase yield per acre.
They got the idea from the people who have been doing it for centuries in the South American jungles.
But trash is something that actually needs to be addressed and land fills are a bad idea. To much can be done with the garbage to make throwing it away a good idea.
Slartibartfast:
you take one sentence out of context and use that to prove me wrong?
Very funny.
Based on that I would say Bdaman is more believable because he links the article and posts the salient points in context.
You on the other hand are nothing more than a lame propagandist for a failed agency.
Could you also debunk this
Here you go Dr. Slarti, more for you to debunk.
In percentage terms, how much electricity does Britain’s 3,150 wind turbines supply to the National Grid?
Is it: a) five per cent;
b) ten per cent; or
c) 20 per cent?
Come on, I’m going to have to hurry you. No conferring.
Time’s up. The correct answer is: none of the above.
Yesterday afternoon, the figure was just 1.6 per cent, according to the official website of the wholesale electricity market.
Over the past three weeks, with demand for power at record levels because of the freezing weather, there have been days when the contribution of our forests of wind turbines has been precisely nothing.
It gets better. As the temperature has plummeted, the turbines have had to be heated to prevent them seizing up. Consequently, they have been consuming more electricity than they generate.
Even on a good day they rarely work above a quarter of their theoretical capacity. And in high winds they have to be switched off altogether to prevent damage.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1342032/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-You-dont-need-weatherman-know-way-wind-blows.html#ixzz19WDRhuiK
People are finding out the hard way that wind power is Blowin in the Wind. Ask T-Boone
Bdaman,
Of the two of us, which one do you think the other readers here believe has more common sense?
Definitely you, hands down.
Herman,
I don’t know what site the IQ test was on – I don’t put all that much stock in IQ in any case – it’s not how smart you are, it’s what use you make of the intelligence you have that’s important. You and Bdaman can say things like:
“The problem with people with high IQ’s is that they always think they know more than they actually do.”
without providing any evidence all you want – it wont change the fact that neither you nor Bdaman seem willing to address my argument that a pollution policy is necessary even if advocates of anthropomorphic climate change are wrong.
Oh, by the way, the articles by Mr. Fumento don’t even begin to prove that the EPA hasn’t improved air and water quality or that things would be better without the EPA. The following is a quote from on of the articles you linked:
“Hooker had no choice but to dump its toxic waste somewhere.”
Really? They couldn’t have chosen to find production methods that didn’t produce toxic waste? They couldn’t have disposed of it in some way that would not have impacted public health? Methinks Mr. Fumento doth protest too much…
Bdaman,
Of the two of us, which one do you think the other readers here believe has more common sense?
Bdaman:
Slartibartfast only has a slightly higer IQ than that monkey lover Darwin. So Chris Langan would think him to be in the toilet in terms of IQ. Maybe he would acknowledge that he [Slartibartfast] was riding the “rim” of intellectual ability.
I guess SBF is right, he is the stoopidist jeanis he knows.
The problem with people with high IQ’s is that they always think they know more than they actually do.
HtH = Herman the Hermit
My experience has been that the ones with the high IQ are extremely book smart but got no fucking common sense.
Chris Langan is the world’s smartest man
here are all the articles. You can do the research to prove Fumento wrong. From what I know about the science I believe he is mostly correct.
http://fumento.com/columns.html
http://fumento.com/epa/cleanair.html
this one is especially good as it suggests the EPA may not be interested in cleaning up auto emissions due to the money involved and the bureaucracy created and sustained by testing.
The problem with people with high IQ’s is that they always think they know more than they actually do.
Slartibartfast:
Which Internet IQ test? That is wonderful to be so smart. You must amaze yourself everyday. 🙂
The reason I said the EPA was a failed agency is because they are unable to stop arsenic and Cr(+6) from getting into the drinking water.
The fact that they can impose prison and fines after the fact is not particularly impressive. I dont believe the EPA has brought about cleaner air and water.
here are some articles by Michael Fumento:
http://www.fumento.com/agent/lovecanal.html
http://fumento.com/agent/dioxin_alarmism.html
Herman posted:
Here’s a good question. 2010 is supposedly the hottest on record surpassing 1998, where were all the blizzards in 99 and in 2000. In 2000 we were told snowfalls were a thing of the past.
bdaman
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 time to do something was 20-25 years ago.
i would be all for abolishing the tsa,dea, and quite a few others i’m with you, but as far as epa no thanks. if tootie and the hermit want to drink sewage and suck their air out of a tailpipe that’s their problem.
Bdaman:
very funny videos.
Are you trying to say Slartbartfast might be wrong about government being able to control pollution?
Slartibartfast:
you are a very ill-mannered person. You dont even know me and you think I am stupid for not having the same view on a subject as you?
I accept your apology in advance.
But I will say this, I do pollute a bit based on your definition. Although I do compost and I keep the lights off when not in use and the heat at 68 in the winter and the AC at 76 in the summer. I like to save as much as I can in the way of money.
I dont know much about regulations and so have no opinion as to what Bush did or didnt do. I am a hermit so I try to avoid politics and religion for the very same reason you called me stupid. People of low intelligence usually disagree with and call stupid those with whom they disagree.
So I have little tolerance for fools or poorly behaved people. I will assume you to be poorly behaved based on your fractal. At least I assume it to be such.