From this page (h/t Dave Hagen)
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is inviting comment from all interested parties on options and questions to be considered for possible greenhouse gas regulations under the Clean Air Act. EPA is issuing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) to gather information and determine how to proceed.
The Advance Notice
The ANPR is one of the steps EPA has taken in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. The Court found that the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to regulate tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions if EPA determines they cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The ANPR reflects the complexity and magnitude of the question of whether and how greenhouse gases could be effectively controlled under the Clean Air Act.
The document summarizes much of EPA’s work and lays out concerns raised by other federal agencies during their review of this work. EPA is publishing this notice at this time because it is impossible to simultaneously address all the agencies’ issues and respond to the agency’s legal obligations in a timely manner.
Key Issues for Discussion and Comment in the ANPR:
- Descriptions of key provisions and programs in the CAA, and advantages and disadvantages of regulating GHGs under those provisions;
- How a decision to regulate GHG emissions under one section of the CAA could or would lead to regulation of GHG emissions under other sections of the Act, including sections establishing permitting requirements for major stationary sources of air pollutants;
- Issues relevant for Congress to consider for possible future climate legislation and the potential for overlap between future legislation and regulation under the existing CAA; and,
- Scientific information relevant to, and the issues raised by, an endangerment analysis.
EPA will accept public comment on the ANPR for 120 days following its publication in the Federal Register.
Background
In April 2007, the Supreme Court concluded that GHGs meet the CAA definition of an air pollutant. Therefore, EPA has authority under the CAA to regulate GHGs subject to the endangerment test for new motor vehicles – an Agency determination that GHG emissions from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.
A decision to regulate GHG emissions for motor vehicles impacts whether other sources of GHG emissions would need to be regulated as well, including establishing permitting requirements for stationary sources of air pollutants.
How to Comment
- Comments should be identified by the following Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0318
- Comments should be submitted by one of the following method
- www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
- Email: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov
- Fax: 202-566-9744
- Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St. NW., Washington, DC 20503.
- Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington DC, 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
It is a great idea to send comments to the EPA on the subject of regulating greenhouse gases. You all know the science on the subject. Your input as to the futility, impossibility, and harm that will result from from regulation are necessary to develop an administrative record to justify doing nothing rather than attempting to regulate.
* * *
Some of the comments about the authority of Congress and/or the EPA to act miss the point. You fail to note the existence of the “necessary and proper clause” in Art I, Sec 8 of the Constitution. Art I Sec 8 states the delineates the authority of Congress. The final clause states:
“To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
This clause was narrowly construed until the Supreme Court enabled Roosevelt’s New Deal laws with a revised broad and liberal construction in 1934. SCOTUS maintained this approach of Federal supremacy until the influence of Thomas, Scalia, and more recently Alito and Roberts began to prevail. Now reserved States’ rights and originalist meaning have been emphasized to curtail the scope and application of the “necessary and proper clause.” However, bad decisions like “Kelo” (eminent domain), and the Court playing scientist to decide that CO2 is a pollutant still occur.
The conservative “originalist” approach to construction of the Constitution can be expected to further curtail judicial activism. If one more conservative judge is added, SCOTUS will stop legislating through its decisions.
Conversely, if Obama is elected he will appoint liberal activists to the Court. Their policy-making from the bench will lay the ground work for conversion of our government to Euro-style socialism without the need for Congress to act.
To put this into perspective, two statements attributed to De Tocqueville come to mind:
“Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.”
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”
Since 2006 Congress, to the extent it has acted, showed that knows how to bribe us. The future will be determined by whoever is elected as the next President. This is not intended to influence how any one votes. I have described the situation that exists and how it can change depending upon who is the next President.
1. CO2 (human emitted) effect on global temperature is statistically not discernable.
2. CO2 makes the planet greener.
EPA ought to focus on litter and clean water, and stop wasting our tax dollars on this nonsense.
So, will the EPA regulate human emissions? If not, why not? I’m not advocating that they do, just pointing out the ridiculousness of this.
Ridiculous it may be but there is ample precedent in previous government actions. Elsewhere I mentioned the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act. Harry Anslinger, then Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, initially resisted regulation by pointing out that marijuana was a common wild weed growing nearly everywhere; even on the banks of the Potomac. IOW: it was as silly as regulating crabgrass. Happened anyway, you may note. Of course, the fact that another byproduct of the plant, hemp fiber, just by sheer coincidence was a competitor with cotton likely had nothing to do with the 1937 Act.
No point in bringing up the absurdity. Federal action in regard to CO2 is a very likely possibility regardless of the questionable forethought. Fight the action but calling it ridiculous will only get you relegated to the nut pile.
Peter,
[rant]
better to get a chance to leave first. The remaining folks will turn the key to off, anyway.
[/rant]
Hmmm, I was allways curious/amazed, why people leaving/escaping their countries, choosing the unknown – which could be worse – than staying with the known.
There seems the be a certain percentage – probably less than 10 percent – among every nation/society, who really live by the words: “Give me freedom… or give me death”.
Unfortunately, nearly allways, the herd behavior crowd prefers – by indoctrination/
propaganda – to use the cheaper method, death, to get rid of inconvenience minorities. But that’s not allways manageable. Usually, the easiest way, is to provide a free ticket/transportation for them and take away all their properties.
Was done that way, much too often, in human history.
Mars, here we come…. and beyond …. there’s a whole Universe …. waiting for us to fill it.
Peter, book me on that flight, too.
Regards
KlausB
OT?
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=bx3_Sj700CE&feature=related
A lot of the posts miss the point (some catch it). The Supremes, when they work outside the normal legislative process, create chaos. This is what conservatives have long argued – I won’t go into what they have argued about, but both congress and the president are increasingly releasing power to an unelected elite. The administration should explicitely state that the court has overstepped its bounds, and fight back. But they won’t…
Comments should explicitely talk about the economic effects. In any EPA rule making, they are bound to take cost benefit into account by their own rules. You should also state up front that the Administration should choose this fight to stake out the limits of the various branches….
Plants evolved when CO2 levels were much higher than now. In fact, before our industrialization, we were reaching record low levels of CO2. I recently saw a television special on either National Geographic or Science Channel where the demise of life on Earth was going to come from CO2 depletion due to erosion.
The CO2 would continue to fall, the plants would die, then the herbivores would die and then the carnivores would die. CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a vital plant nutrient.
Brendan (12:59:32) : A lot of the posts miss the point (some catch it). The Supremes, when they work outside the normal legislative process, create chaos. … The administration should explicitly state that the court has overstepped its bounds, and fight back. But they won’t
Brendan, I understand the sentiment but the U.S. Supreme Court (vs. the Motown group) ruling was only in regard to a categorization of CO2 under the CAA definition. If the administration were to comment as you suggest, then the administration would be out of line. The Supreme Court was well within its “bounds.” The real harm was the CAA being sufficiently broad enough to allow inclusion of CO2 using its definitions.
If you don’t like what Congress and the President are doing, help find someone better and vote out the incumbents.
CO2 emissions are “commerce”?
LOL!
Only in the bizarro upside down world of neo-conservative thinking.
How much CO2 is TOO low for plants to flourish? How low do we want it, 280 ppm? What if we deindustrialize and then find the levels falling lower? Do we then pull all the old Cadillacs out of the museums and fire ’em up?
Just wondering…
Sent my e-mail today.
Paddy L said
“The future will be determined by whoever is elected as the next President. This is not intended to influence how any one votes. I have described the situation that exists and how it can change depending upon who is the next President.”
That statement is likely true, but both main party candidates, Obama and McCain, support the AGW agenda. As to appointments to the SCOTUS both candidates are likely to appoint bad judges who will put our rights in jeopardy. Its just a question of which rights. The 2nd amendment might be lost under Obama and habeas corpus might be lost under McCain. So the question is; do you want to lose your right to keep and bear arms or do you want to be thrown in jail without charges and without legal recourse and left there until you rot?
If you want a candidate who supports your rights you are down to Bob Barr of the libertarian party or Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution party. And of those two, Chuck Baldwin seems to be the only one who questions AGW.
Anthony, my apologies for injecting politics into a science forum, but the AGW debate has injected itself into politics without help from me.
David Segesta (13:18:50) :”If you want a candidate who supports your rights you are down to Bob Barr of the libertarian party or Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution party. And of those two, Chuck Baldwin seems to be the only one who questions AGW.”
Unfortunately, either would be as lame our current lame duck president.
I don’t like any of the candidates but that’s democracy at its best: no candidate completely pleases anyone. McCain at least has made noise about supporting offshore drilling. I originally thought well of Obama (still do somewhat) but I might just go with McCain.
The sad truth is: the Republicans haven’t a snowball’s chance in a traditionally warm place. Makes Obama the winner by default. Unless, of course, he makes some fantastic blunder like coming out in favor of child abuse.
It really doesn’t matter what the candidates say about AGW. It’s not really a campaign issue (like energy price and supply is going to be) so mutterings along the line of the perceived “consensus” is the safest strategy . Nobody wants a repeat of the last two elections.
JP stole my thunder. Water vapour is a far more dangerous green house gas 🙂 and should be regulated much more stringently than CO2. CO2 on the other hand is a fertilizer and more of it is good. Same goes for water vapour too 🙂
However, I don’t thinkl me just writing in will help will it?
Green hosues regularly use 1000 ppm CO2 concentrations. I suggest the EPA regulate an increase in CO2 to 1000 ppm.
.
At what point would a plan of CO2 mitigation become ridiculous? Let’s say alternative energy & energy efficiency measures become feasible and widespread & the USA cuts 75% of its CO2 emissions by 2050, but CO2 levels climb ever faster from the developing world. Will it mean the USA will have to cut yet more even though cutting the remaining 25% becomes increasingly cost-prohibitive?
There’s a point where it’s unreasonable to burden individuals with controlling their minor non-point source emissions. A wood-burning stove in the back country is a fart in a hurricane & we want the gov’t to leave us the heck alone. Or how ’bout owners of funky old rides, like my 40-year old classic? http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2980523
Meanwhile successive generations of increasingly fuel-efficient cars can be delivered through the marketplace without excessively punitive laws.
James H — “If you do the math, you’ll find that the average person exhales roughly the same amount of CO2 as a car driven 12-15000 miles per year, something like 7 tons per person per year, assuming a sedimentary lifestyle (no frequent vigorous exercise).”
Actually, I think anyone with a sedimentary lifestyle is unlikely to exercise much at all, much less vigourously… and probably what the Ehrlich followers (i.e. almost all of the greens seem to be Malthusians) want from most of us anyway. We certainly won’t be driving.
If the crazy AGW proponents get their way regulating CO2 until it reaches pre-Industrial level could plunge us to a new little ice age if it’s combined with a negative PDO and sunspotless sun (Maunder or Dalton Minimum). If that happens heaven help us.
what section of the constitution authorizes congress to regulate any emissions?
The courts have ruled that anything that might possibly cross a state border, can be regulated by congress.
Have you ever hear the case of the farmer who didn’t buy corn?
Seems a particular farmer was growing his own corn to feed his own cows. He felt that the fact that he was not engaging in interstate commerce meant that the feds had no authority to regulate how much corn he was growing.
The courts ruled that since he was growing his own corn, he therefore was not buying corn. The corn that he would have bought possibly would have crossed a state border. Hence, by not buying corn, the farmer was affecting interstate commerce, therefore congress had a right to regulate his corn production.
There are some scholars who refer to the commerce clause as the clause that ate the constitution.
if you read the Constitution carefully, you will note that at best it only mentions what laws cannot be passed and never mentions which ones can.
There’s a reason for this.
The constitution grants congress certain powers. By definition, if the constitution doesn’t directly authorize it, congress doesn’t have the power to pass laws.
Unfortunately the courts have, over the years, decided that certain clauses mean things that the founders never intended them to mean, and by such reasoning, have decided to let congress do anything it wants.
A few years ago, the SC ruled that congress has the power to regulate political speech, even though the 1st ammendment clearly states that congress shall make no law restricting the freedom of speech, because the SC decided that the appearance of a fair election was more important than anything in the constitution itself.
You all have no idea how far through the looking glass things have gone. The EPA does NOT consider offsetting benefits or any cost-benefit ratio of substances determined to be “pollutants.” Pollutants have no legally cognizable “benefits”under the EPA. The only legal calculation is the degree of risk of adverse environmental effect. Loss of environmental benefit (much less economic benefit) is not a category of the analysis. The only cost calculation considered is a pragmatic one as to the cost of compliance with the threshold levels being considered.
So the issue is quite simple really. Water vapor is a more comprehensive and powerful GHG than CO2. Even CO2 impact is a matter of vapor feedback. Water vapor is emitted at a lower level per watt of power by hydrocarbon engines compared with purely hydrogen-burning engines or fuel cells (a simple mass balance for equivalent heat can determine that). So the logic is very simple.
The EPA’s decision is a foregone conclusion – if logic is followed – ban hydrogen vehicles as the worst total emitters of GHG’s, and promote hydrocarbon engines as lower in dihydrogen monoxide footprint. (Subject to CAFE limits, of course).
Hands up anyone who thinks logic is driving decision-making at EPA? Ahem.
…. anyone?
… anyone?
..sometimes, I’m asking myself, when it’s time for the
“Boston AGW Party”
…. sorry, ranting again
Mark w said;
“The constitution grants congress certain powers. By definition, if the constitution doesn’t directly authorize it, congress doesn’t have the power to pass laws.”
You got it brother. BTW that premise is also specifically stated in the 10th amendment for those who didn’t understand the original constitution. Unfortunately the SC justices don’t understand either part.
My “help wanted ad” for SC justices would say; “must be able to read the simple language of the constitution. Non-readers need not apply.”
EPA in implementing regulations uses cost benefit all the time. Its not always consistent, but that depends how much the public screams about it…
DAV –
Nowhere – and I mean NOWHERE – in the CAA does it specify CO2 as a pollutant. It does specify pollutants that need to be dealt with, and EPA has done that in the past. The supremes in their arrogance took it upon themselves to add it. That is a complete judicial over reach, whether you like it or not. By doing so, they have placed the entire management of US industry, as well as normal people, under EPA’s jurisdiciton. When I say that they have overreached their bounds, and that it would be within the right of the administration to tell them where to go, I am only stating that the adminstration should defend the constitution. Congress certainly won’t. Each branch has its limits, and the supremes have well gone beyond theirs…
According to Chief Justice Roberts:
The realities make it pure conjecture to suppose that EPA regulation of new automobile emissions will likely prevent the loss of Massachusetts coastal land.
This is much of what we have been discussing in this forum. The misuse of models and data is rampant. I will state categorically that the models that predict land loss as MA complained use the absolute worst case scenarios as predicted with completely unsupportable models (i.e. – they cannot predict today’s environment given past inputs…)
Let me finish with another quote from Roberts….
The limitation of the judicial power to cases and controversies “is crucial in maintaining the tripartite allocation of power set forth in the Constitution.” DaimlerChrysler, 547 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 5) (internal 14 quotation marks omitted). In my view, the Court today—addressing Article III’s “core component of standing,” Defenders of Wildlife, supra, at 560—fails to take this limitation seriously.
He says it better than I, but then he’s the Chief Justice. He basically backs up my opinion of overreach.
I have written up an explanation of how we got here with EPA trying regulate ghgs: http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2008/07/11/epa-staffs-attempt-to-regulate-greenhouse-gases-under-the-clean-air-act/
Silly,yes, but… I wonder if there is an plant equivalent to “free range” chickens? Perhaps we can demand “High C02 grown” vegetables, plants grown is an atmosphere joyfully rich in C02. “Don’t torture plants by starvation. Give them the C02 they so richly deserve!” It’s not any government’s right to deny the living carbon world (biomass) the C02 that it loves — and subsequently feeds humans that create the civilization (along with its government agencies) that creates the extra C02. Why deny plants their just rewards?