In a stunning act of political kowtowing, the EPA caved to special interest groups and politics and declared CO2 a “dangerous pollutant”, even though it is part of the natural cycle of life. Now the gloves come off and the real fight begins during the 60 day public comment period. If you’ve never stood up to “consensus” before, now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country. See instructions below for submitting public comment. – Anthony
Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act
Background
On April 2, 2007, in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), the Supreme Court found that greenhouse gases are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act. The Court held that the Administrator must determine whether or not emissions of greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision. In making these decisions, the Administrator is required to follow the language of section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court decision resulted from a petition for rulemaking under section 202(a) filed by more than a dozen environmental, renewable energy, and other organizations.
Action
You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader, available as a free download, to view some of the files on this page. See EPA’s PDF page to learn more about PDF, and for a link to the free Acrobat Reader.
The Administrator signed a proposal with two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act:
- The Administrator is proposing to find that the current and projected concentrations of the mix of six key greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)—in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. This is referred to as the endangerment finding.
- The Administrator is further proposing to find that the combined emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O, and HFCs from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines contribute to the atmospheric concentrations of these key greenhouse gases and hence to the threat of climate change. This is referred to as the cause or contribute finding.
Today’s proposed action, as well as any final action in the future, would not itself impose any requirements on industry or other entities. An endangerment finding under one provision of the Clean Air Act would not by itself automatically trigger regulation under the entire Act.
Proposed Finding
The Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act was signed on April 17, 2009, and will be published in the Federal Register and available in the Docket (www.regulations.gov) shortly under Docket ID No. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171]. A pre-publication copy is provided below. While EPA has taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this Internet version of the document, it is not the official version.
- Pre-publication copy of the Administrator’s Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act (full version) (PDF) (133 pp, 661KB, About PDF)
Technical analyses developed in support of the Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act may be found here:
- Technical Support Document for the Proposed Findings (PDF) (171 pp, 2.8MB, About PDF)
Submitting Comments on Proposed Finding
The public comment period is open for 60 days following publication in the Federal Register. (Please note that official comments on the proposed finding cannot be submitted until the Federal Register publication).
Written Comments
Written comments on the proposed finding (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171) may be submitted by using the following instructions:
- Instructions for Submitting Written Comments (PDF) (3 pp, 39KB, About PDF)
When providing comments, please submit them with reference to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171.
Public Hearings
There will be two public hearings for this proposed finding. EPA requests those who wish to attend or give public comments, to register on-line in advance of the hearing. EPA will audio web stream both public hearings. The meeting information pages will be updated with this information as it becomes available.
- May 18, 2009, at the EPA Potomac Yard Conference Center, Arlington, VA; and
- May 21, 2009, at the Bell Harbor International Conference Center in Seattle, WA
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Anthony you have to read this one from AP Seth Borenstein:
“SETH BORENSTEIN
The Associated Press
April 14, 2009 at 4:23 PM EDT
WASHINGTON — A new scientific study finds that the absolute worst of global warming can still be avoided if the entire world cuts emission of greenhouse gases the way U.S. President Barack Obama and Europe want.
A computer simulation by the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado looks at what would happen by the end of the century if greenhouse gas levels were cut by 70 per cent.
The result: The world would still be a warmer world, but by about one degree Celsius instead of two degrees.
Arctic sea ice would shrink but not disappear, and sea level would rise less.
About half the temperature increases and changes in droughts and floods can be avoided compared to a scenario without emission cuts, according to the study, which will be published next week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
Future heat waves would be 55 per cent less intense.
Thawing of permafrost in the far north would also be reduced.
The study is one of the first to use computer models to quantify how much of the effects global warming can be avoided, compared to a world if nothing is done about the problem.
While the study looked at what would happen with dramatic cuts in future pollution, history has shown that reductions are much easier to talk about than to make. The controversial 1997 Kyoto Protocol called for industrialized countries to cut emissions but since then levels worldwide have gone up 25 per cent. In the United States, where emissions are up six per cent in the last decade, Congress is fiercely arguing over a plan to reduce pollution.
“If we follow on the path that Obama has outlined of cutting emissions by 70 or 80 per cent and the rest of the world does it, then we can make a big difference on the climate by the end of the century,” climate scientist and study chief author Warren Washington told The Associated Press.
But if the United States and Europe cut back on carbon dioxide and China, India and other developing countries do not, then the world is heading toward a harsher hotter future, not the one the study shows, Mr. Washington said.
The study mapped areas that would benefit the most by emission cuts, comparing what would happen with less carbon dioxide pollution and what would happen if greenhouse gas continue to grow. The difference between the two scenarios is starkest for temperatures in Alaska and the mountain west, which would see temperatures rise a couple degrees less with emission cuts. Reduced carbon dioxide would also significantly lessen predicted future droughts on the Pacific coast and flooding in the Northeast.
Much of Europe, Russia, China and Australia would see the biggest temperature benefits from reductions in greenhouse gas pollution, while the Mediterranean, Caribbean and North Africa region would benefit the most in predicted changes in rainfall from less global warming.
If the world cuts back on fossil fuels, “it isn’t going to be as bad,” Mr. Washington said.”
So if they re-elect Obama for the next 20 years, we may even enjoy a glaciation…
And this gem: “Future heat waves would be 55 per cent less intense.” Guys not half, but 55- FIFTY FIVE-, all is in the extra 5%… LOL
As a chemist having studied the molecular mechanism of photosynthesis for 30 years, I watched with much delight the fine collage at the article top. Let me please use this at a debate with AGWers to be held next Saturday.
REPLY: Take my art, please. – Anthony
What, the number one greenhouse gas is left off the list?
REPLY: Water vapor, of course, but its a natural part of the earth’s environment and cycles, so regulating it would be just crazy, oh, wait….
Anthony
May I propose setting up a proforma post for each major section of the two documents:
* Pre-publication copy of the Administrator’s Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act
* Technical Support Document for the Proposed Findings
Then let readers post substantive references and comments to each of those sections. e.g. see
Nature Not Human Activity Rules the Climate
(Strongly recommend all readers cut the flak and focus on substance in these sections.)
Readers could then work together to write well documented responses to those sections citing the technical literature and data.
It would help to have links on the side to these posts to easily access them over the next 60 days while other posts continue.
It seems our government has become detached from reality (i.e insane!) This is reminiscent of Orwell’s 1984; “war is peace”, “freedom is slavery”, “ignorance is strength”.
In this case; lots of ice is no ice, cold is hot, a beneficial gas is dangerous, etc.
Stop EPA:
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2009/04/stop-epa-before-it-destroys-america.html
Here are links to the: Heartland Institute announcement.
Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate (pdf) – by Edited by S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. PDF document
Dr. Pielke has strong feelings about the EPA’s political act. See: http://climatesci.org/2009/03/25/is-this-science-epas-plan-to-regulate-co2-claiming-it-endangers-the-publics-health-and-welfare/
tokyoboy (20:01:59) :
“As a chemist having studied the molecular mechanism of photosynthesis for 30 years, I watched with much delight the fine collage at the article top. Let me please use this at a debate with AGWers to be held next Saturday.
REPLY: Take my art, please. – Anthony”
tokyoboy:
For your information:
1. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/markey_barton_letter.html
2. http://www.ilovemucarbodioxide.com
3. http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2009/04/stop-epa-before-it-destroys-america.html
Obama announced his intention to do this back during the campaign, but I guess no one believed him, or they just didn’t realize how much more dangerous this is than even the worst cap and trade scheme. If this goes through, every proposal, plan, or action by any corporation, business, governmental unit, or even individual will become immediately subject to the extortionate legal predations of the ravaging hoards of the environmentalists lawyers. It will not take long for the entire economy to come to a screeching halt. We are already experiencing the litigation costs inflicted across the economy, in health care, development,equal opportunity, and other areas where the reach of the regulations is a minuscule fraction of that which these rules will provide. If this colossal folly is allowed to stand we will have reached a “Will the last one out please turn off the lights” moment. Unfortunately, these donkeys have such an advanced case of cranio-rectal inversion syndrome, that no amount of public outcry may dissuade them. But we had all better give it our best shot anyway, because, unlike the catastrophe fantasies of Algore and Hansen, our lives will really be on the line if this stands.
This is the mother of all political correctness gone completely mad ….
In fact I find the whole thing terribly sad … it just shows that we, the human race, have not travelled very far from the days when we locked up Gallileo for daring to state that the earth went around the sun.
It is beginning to remind me of some of the sci-fi books I used to read as a kid where futuristic society behaves in some ridiculous fashion – like not going outside because air would kill you …. under the management of some “Big Brother” government which just maintained the lie for no other reason than control.
The damage done to science and progress will last a generation and I just hope that the debacle of this issue from the first decade of the 21st century will be used as a learning and as an example about the dangers of political dogma gone crazy – it is the opposite of every good value we teach our children.
Anthony is right – now is the time to stand up and say “THIS IS NONSENSE”.
Pat Michaels has shredded the “Technical Support Document”:
http://cato.org/pubs/articles/michaels_ANPR_EPA.pdf
[snip – not interested in your opinions on lead, take it somewhere else – Anthony]
Let the games begin.
Folks, do not panic. This is only one more step in a process that will grind on until everyone thoroughly sick of it.
The EPA issued a proposed finding. Now they have to hold hearings, which should be quite droll. Once they have done that. and the comment period has closed. They must review the mountains of comments they will receive and the hundreds of hours of testimony they will have to transcribe. Then they must prepare findings. All of that will take months. The EPA will have have to propose a remedy. (I do not think that anything but automobiles is on the table here so cap and trade, and coal fired power plants will not be issues).
Then the litigation begins. I see at least two trips to SCOTUS. Of course, Congress could still act (your life, liberty and property are not safe).
The administration will discover that it is of two minds about most of these issues, being firmly converted to Gaia worship, but also having sunk or committed to a $Xe11 stake in the US auto industry. Try to figure out how to bail out that pup without sell SUVs.
Overall, I think that it is fairly safe to bet on a new ice age starting before this clusterf*** is resolved. Generations of lawyers will send their children to college, and fund their IRAs off of the litigations. Millions of trees will die needless deaths. And still nothing meaningful will have happened.
Make no mistake, the administration wants to use this development to push a “cap and trade” or carbon tax through congress, not to appease the Goddess, but to find a source of money to pay for their bailouts and for socialized medicine. I doubt that it will work for them in that way.
Gauntlet Dropped. Grass Roots need to add fertilizer.
I already sent a protest to the “EPA Chief Administrator” (Lisa Jackson) who spoke for the media stories. You can find her bio here on Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_P._Jackson
My suggestion is that EVERYONE who reads this blog and disagrees with the IPCC conclusions (Al Gore, Hansen, et al)…needs to fill out the EPA public comment form without delay.
You can find Lisa’s email by typing her name in here: http://cfpub.epa.gov/locator/index.cfm
You would be surprised how these people actually takes your comments seriously. It’s how we recalled a governor in CA and beat down some votes in our legislature.
And President Obama says he wants to hear from you. You can write to him here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/ But be careful, and respectful. Once you hit SEND…you don’t want a visit from the FBI or Secret Service.
…and don’t be a Hansen or Joe Romm. Be *nice*: we are presenting science, not emotion.
Time for a tea party, carbonated of course.
As a matter of fact, if this goes through, civil disobedience is in order. Not the Hansen variety, the Henry David Thoreau variety.
Every student who passed high school biology knows at least the fundamentals of the carbon cycle, so there shouldn’t be any point in restating it here. However, the higher reaches of the government don’t seem to understand that if CO2 is a pollutant, then O2 must also be a pollutant. Hey gang: plants use CO2 from the air and sequester the C part in the form of, well, plants, and in the process, release the O2 part. Animals use the O2 from the air, eat the plants, and sequester the C part from the plants in the form of, well, a carbon-based animal and, in the process, release CO2 into the air or CH4 (methane, another one of the bad-ass gasses which produces more CO2 when burned in the presence of O2). When the animal dies, the C part is released again in the form of CO2 which is used by the plants . . . and so on infinitum.
This is getting aggravating!
[Don’t feed the trolls -Anthony]
This is an excellent opportunity to be heard by the EPA.
I want to share some thoughts about making public comments, as I attend many public hearings on various issues before agencies and commissions, listen to the comments, observe the commenters, and read many of the written comments that are submitted. I also make comments from time to time. I meet with various commissioners and members of public agencies, and get their views and feedback on comments and those who make the comments.
One of my public comments on California’s Global Warming law is here:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/lists/scopingpln08/1554-arb_letter_sowell_12-9-08.pdf
Comments are made in all forms and styles. Some are more effective than others. For those who want to view some comments on other issues, for style and content, please have a look at the link below. Some comments are one or two sentences, and others extend for several pages. Length does not matter, but content does.
For the most effect, it is a good idea to consider the following format for a comment:
Use letterhead. When the letter is complete, scan it and attach the digital file to your comment.
Identify yourself and / or your organization, describe what you do or your experience. It is a good idea to thank the EPA for the opportunity to make comments. (They like reading this, even though they are required by law to accept comments). If you work for an employer who does not support your view, it is important to state that your views are your own and do not represent anyone else.
Organize your comments into paragraphs.
Use a form letter only if you must. It is far more effective to write a comment using your own words.
However, if someone else’s comment states what you wanted to say, it is fine to write and refer to the earlier comment, by name and date, and state your agreement with what was written. The agency appreciates that, as it reduces the number of words they must read.
It is important to know that the agency staff reads the comments, categorizes them, and keeps a total of how many comments were made in each category. So, the number of comments do count. Encourage your friends to make comments, too.
Make your statement/point in the paragraph, refer to actual data where possible, and give the citation or link. Tell them why you hold your view. Try to maintain a positive, reasonable tone, and if criticizing the EPA, tread gently. Point out the inconsistencies of their view compared to other respected publications, or to accepted methodologies.
It is a good idea to describe how you are affected, or will be affected, by this proposed rule.
Close by thanking the EPA for considering your view.
Sign your name (comments get much more serious consideration when signed).
The link to public comments on U.S. government issues:
http://www.regulations.gov/search/search_results.jsp?css=0&&Ntk=All&Ntx=mode+matchall&N=8099&Ne=2+8+11+8053+8054+8098+8074+8066+8084+8055&Ntt=comments&sid=120B596A7935
Save the environment! Outlaw beans at once!
I wrote the President and Lisa Jackson.
Something tells me they are not listening.
Something tells me that the bus is going the wrong way on the freeway.
The only one who is against this in my neck of the woods in our Republican Congressman, Wally Herger.
In fact, I would say in this politically charged war on C02, you will be whistling in the wind writing to any Democrat. They buy AGW.
Find a Republican and write them instead.
Anthony,
Does UP EPA consider submissions from outside the US? If this goes through other pseudo green lobby groups are likely to use it as a precedent.
But wait, it gets even better.
Vilsack names head of Environment and Climate
By Lisa M. Keefe on 4/17/2009
Handtmann, Inc
As the controversy over global warming — and meat production’s contributions to it — gains steam, USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack announced that an executive of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) is appointed Senior Advisor to the Secretary for Environment and Climate.
In this position, Robert Bonnie, EDF’s Vice-President for Land Conservation and Wildlife, will help guide broad policy and program decisions with an emphasis on those concerning the nation’s natural resources and climate issues.
Bonnie is described as a leading national expert on the use of markets as a means to reward stewardship on farms, ranches and forest lands, including carbon crediting and conservation banking for endangered species.
“Robert Bonnie brings to USDA 14 years of experience at the Environmental Defense Fund where he worked to conserve natural resources and protect the climate on America’s farms, ranches and forest lands,” Vilsack said in a release.
“President Obama has been clear that two of his top goals for the department are related to the environment: expanding the capacity of our land, our farms, and our ranches to produce alternative forms of energy and fuel; and developing the research that will help agriculture transition away from its significant dependence on fossil fuels.
“Robert’s work on conservation incentives and markets, as well as conservation policy, will help guide USDA as we address some of the most challenging issues facing our nation’s future.”
A Harvard graduate, Bonnie holds a master’s degree in resource economics and forestry from Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment, Durham, N.C. He grew up on a farm in Kentucky and now lives in Virginia.
Yeah, radical enviromentalists within USDA. What could go wrong?
Why this call to action is important: In that respect this is not OT.
I am a history buff and have learned something about economics. This may sound ‘too basic and silly” but….
Money only has value because it represents “stuff”, i.e. goods and services. A special hand picked organic apple is sold for $1. Everyone agrees (except maybe me) that a perfect organic apple is the equivalent of a piece of paper that has a “$1” on it.
But suppose that one player in the economic game says that we have printed so many $1 that your $1 is no longer worth that perfect apple. Let’s imagine that player says that they will not take any more pieces of your paper i.e. loan you money or accept your money in trade. Should (heaven forbid) that idea catch on, soon nobody will believe that your paper has any value at all. Your paper (and everything denominated in your paper) will not only be worth less, but literally worthless.
See here from the UK Times, it talks about our biggest creditor:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/5160120/A-Copper-Standard-for-the-worlds-currency-system.html
Here are some examples as to why you should be concerned:
http://www.brazilbrazil.com/inflat.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Zimbabwe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_in_the_Weimar_Republic
The expected regulations will add a giant tax to the economy of this country. To pay for that tax (if the Chinese aren’t stupid enough to loan us the money) will require that the government print a gadzillion dollars. See what happened in the Weimar Republic, above.
I am at the age when I can no longer start over.
I am concerned-very concerned.
Regards,
Steamboat Jack