Monday, December 7, 2009

An end around to violation

EPA: Greenhouse gases endanger human health

By DINA CAPPIELLO and H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer Dina Cappiello And H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press Writer 1 hr 39 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The Environmental Protection Agency has concluded greenhouse gases are endangering people's health and must be regulated, signaling that the Obama administration is prepared to contain global warming without congressional action if necessary.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson scheduled a news conference for later Monday to announce the so-called endangerment finding, officials told The Associated Press, speaking privately because the announcement had not been made.

The finding is timed to boost the administration's arguments at an international climate conference — beginning this week — that the United States is aggressively taking actions to combat global warming, even though Congress has yet to act on climate legislation.

Under a Supreme Court ruling, the so-called endangerment finding is needed before the EPA can regulate carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases released from power plants, factories and automobiles under the federal Clean Air Act.

The EPA signaled last April that it was inclined to view heat-trapping pollution as a threat to public health and welfare and began to take public comments under a formal rulemaking. The action marked a reversal from the Bush administration, which had declined to aggressively pursue the issue.

Business groups have strongly argued against tackling global warming through the regulatory process of the Clean Air Act. Any such regulations are likely to spawn lawsuits and lengthy legal fights.

The EPA and the White House have said regulations on greenhouse gases will not be imminent even after an endangerment finding, saying that the administration would prefer that Congress act to limit such pollution through an economy-wide cap on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Nevertheless, the EPA has begun the early stages of developing permit requirements on carbon dioxide pollution from large emitters such as power plants. The administration also has said it will require automobile fuel economy to increase to a fleet average of 35 miles per gallon by 2016, another push to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

The EPA's readiness to tackle climate change is expected to give a boost to U.S. arguments at the climate conference opening in Copenhagen this week that the United States is making broad commitments to reduce greenhouse gases.

While the House has approved climate legislation that would cut emissions by 17 percent by 2020 and about 80 percent by mid-century, the Senate has yet to take up the measure amid strong Republican opposition and reluctance by some centrist Democrats.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., lead author of the Senate bill, has argued that if Congress doesn't act, the EPA will require greenhouse gas emissions. He has called EPA regulation a "blunt instrument" that would pose a bigger problem for industry than legislation crafted to mitigate some of the costs of shifting away from carbon emitting fossil fuels.

The way was opened for the EPA to use the Clean Air Act to cut climate-changing emissions by the Supreme Court in 2007, when the court declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Act. But the court said the EPA must determine if these pollutants pose a danger to public health and welfare before it can regulate them.


Pickdog comment. It is getting to be time to start obtaining rope.


Gen-IL Homesteader said...

I think they all need to go back to retake grade school science. We put out carbon dioxide; plants use it to grow; plants put out oxygen to help us grow. More carbon dioxide makes more plants which supports more people. Duh!!

Anonymous said...

Kinda like in your garage, with the car running? Go try that, and tell me how it works out.

If it doesn't offend your sensibilities, go check out some pre-history (Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum), water levels have been higher in other times of heated climate. If that happens again, it will completely displace the most populous Muslim country on earth, all of London, NYC, almost all of Florida, and well - every major city on every coast in the world. Where do you think those people are going to go? Fuck, are you one of those people?

If the weather does change drastically, are you prepared to grow completely different crops? Is anyone else? Oh yeah, do it on less land (competing with refugees, and government confiscation in this 'time of global emergency'). With more variability in weather, less water (both groundwater and rain) - oh yeah, and with more people competing with the crops for water. If you're truly conservative, you ought to be working for sustainability, not continuing to barrel along a track which is downhill in the worst way. What we have been doing isn't going to give us anything more than what we've been getting. Do you like what you've been getting? Do you think it is good for most people (ie: even if you're skimming the cream off the top (which is unlikely by the numbers), do you think the rest of society will continue to put up with what you're doing?) Do you think you'll be able to keep getting it in the future?

So far, at least Obama bin-laden hasn't gone for our guns, unlike every other Prez in the last 60-70ish years (excluding the Shrub, who - AFIAK - only went after our civil liberties.)

Mayberry said...

Anonymous, if it happens again, it'll be a natural cycle like those times you quoted... Preppers adapt, that's what we do. We don't like what we've been getting, and could care less what the rest of "society" thinks.... Obama-bin-laden will come after guns, give him time....