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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Brendan (18:22:33) : Nowhere – and I mean NOWHERE – in the CAA does it specify CO2 as a pollutant.
Not sure what your point is, Brendan.
The Court doesn’t make pronouncements except when asked. Apparently, the Court was asked to considered and rule on whether CO2 should be added to the pollutant. Seems the ruling was that it should have been based upon CAA criteria and the information was presented. It was ruling on the law; not the science. Considering that the U. S. Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality it really doesn’t matter what others think about its constitutional limits. Obviously, by considering the case, the Court tacitly declared it to be within its purview.
You may not like the ruling but there it is.
“added to the pollutant” should have read “added to the pollutant LIST”
So now the court writes legislation? At least half the court does. Yes, I don’t like it. That way lies tyranny. And gets back to my original point. The court did not “rule on the law” – the law was the clean air act. They expanded that law. And used falty science to back it up. The left likes to talk about fascism coming from the right, but its not the right side of the court that developed this abominal ruling, or Kelo, or dozens of others that chip away at individual rights.
The court started out with little power, and its exact powers are somewhat uncertain in the constitution. It gave itself power with Marbury v. Madison, and due to inaction by congress and the president, it continues to take power. I fear for the future.
By the way, many people ask the court to “make pronouncements” (like a king? like a dictator?) – the court chooses vary few of the cases that are directed towards it. The court decides which ones it wants to take on, and it seems it does so in many current instances to expand its own power…
Brendan (21:10:18) : By the way, many people ask the court to “make pronouncements” (like a king? like a dictator?)
Pronouncement, ruling, opinion, arbitration. Well, yes, in a way. They all mean roughly the same thing. The Court interprets the intent and spirit of Congress. What do you think its job is?
I think it a stretch to say the Court is writing legislation. It is reactive vs. proactive. I can’t think of any time the Court has ruled outside of answering a petition.
Laws, Congressional Acts, and whatnot are perforce ambiguous and open to alternate interpretation because natural language is. The fact that there are multiple opinions on what laws say and how they interact is proof of that. Besides, even if they could be written unambiguously, the world isn’t static which opens the door to “what about this?” questions. Until such time Congress gets around to its own clarification, somebody has to provide one. I think the Constitution makes it pretty clear that that particular “somebody” is ultimately the Supreme Court. It’s the system we work under.
How would you do it? If most agree with you, Congress can always modify the Constitution. Push for amendment. Or is that what your after here?
Rats, I got bit by the cyber ghost. That got submitted before I could finish proofreading it. Sorry about the runon italics.
Wil SCOTUS take upon its self the power to regulate CO2 emissions from China , Russia, India, and Brazil ?
If we sucked out all the CO2 in the US , it would be replaced by world wide CO2 emissions . None of these countries are going to disadvantage them selves economically so what purpose would there be
in regulating our CO2 emissions ? Besides since the
IR absorption spectra is the same for industrial generated CO2 as natural CO2 , are we going to reduce all CO2 emissions by 90 % as our scientifically illiterate former VP Al Gore has advocated .
In Al Gores physics and chemistry SATS , he scored
below the 50th percentile while receiving Cs and Ds
in Science at Harvard ( from 2000 Washington Post
Article ).
Will SCOTUS take upon its self the power to regulate CO2 emissions from China , Russia, India, and Brazil ?
If we sucked out all the CO2 in the US , it would be replaced by world wide CO2 emissions . None of these countries are going to disadvantage them selves economically so what purpose would there be in regulating our CO2 emissions ? Besides since the IR absorption spectra is the same for industrial generated CO2 as natural CO2 , are we going to reduce all CO2 emissions by 90 % as our scientifically illiterate former VP Al Gore has advocated .
In Al Gores physics and chemistry SATS , he scoredbelow the 50th percentile while receiving Cs and Ds in Science at Harvard ( from 2000 Washington Post Article ).
Daniel, excellant analysis. However, I’m going to take a slightly different interpretation of EPA’s intentions in publishing this ANPR. My take: EPA is in a tough spot. It has been charged by SCOTUS to regulated CO2 as a tailpipe emission. But it doesn’t have any scientific basis for doing so.
Automobile emission standards exist as a tool for bringing communities into compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Ozone, CO, NOx, SOx, PM2.5, and lead are pollutants for which NAAQS exist. The basis for establishing appropriate standards is the CAA’s requirement that the NAAQS be protective of human health and the environment. EPA’s does this through scientific studies.
Problem: How does EPA establish a NAAQS for CO2 that will stand up to legal challenge?
Answer: It follows the law and establishes a NAAQS that is “protective of human health;” i.e., one that is 10x higher than current ambient levels. They can then declare the entire US in “attainment” with the NAAQS and require no further action. (I believe there are many within EPA who would be amiable to this approach, they just don’t quite dare to do so. If we, through our comments, can provide them with a strong enough rationale, they could do this.)
This approach doesn’t quite statisfy the SCOTUS requirement that it address CO2 as a GHG. However, no tools exist within the CAA to address GHGs directly. To do so, EPA must first establish the scientific evidence demonstrating that CO2 harms the environment. The only tool for doing so is climate modeling. This is the likely path EPA will take.
What we must do is provide EPA with the ammunition to reject the modeling. We do this by submitting our comments, insisting that all modeling code, all algorithms, all input data, all calculations, all modeling assumptions, all “forcings” . . . be open for public review and comment. This is a reasonable request that EPA is unlikely to reject (or they can be legally challenged if they do). We can then document the scientific flaws within the Global Warming theory, setting the foundation for a legal challenge should EPA promulgate a CO2 emission standard that is based upon environmental impact.
DAV :
Point taken. I meant no offense. It was just a really bad analogy. No need for an English lesson.
Daniel (19:14:48) 7/29/08 :
I would be interested in your opinion in helping the EPA determine that “EPA can avoid taking further action only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change.” With the publication of “On the credibility of climate predictions” D. KOUTSOYIANNIS, A. EFSTRATIADIS, N. MAMASSIS & A. CHRISTOFIDES, and Lucia’s excellent postings http://rankexploits.com/musings/ , and Dr. Wegman supporting the conclusions of http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf . The basis of the current conclusions that CO2 will cause harm therefore enabling the EPA to regulate are currently in dissarray. If it can be reasonably shown that the conclusion of CO2 being the driving force under current conditions, will not the EPA be required to step aside? As indicated in your report, the Supreme Court ruled it would be proper for the EPA to not regulate if a such a conclusion could be made or “or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do”. It would be demonstrated to the EPA that KOUTSOYIANNIS, current conditions (Lucia), and mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf, that it can only be concluded to preclude that the claim of CO2 is harmful, and that therefore the EPA must wait until such time as the harm has been demostrated since currently that “harm” has not been demonstrated, and actual worldwide temperatures are declining despite world CO2 levels are increasing.
One “option” to control CO2, not that it needed, but that’s basically what we are talking about, is sequestration. This has a possible ring to it, until you realise that the atmosphere weight is around 5 x 10 to the fifteenth tonnes. 1 part per million is therefore 5 x 10 to the ninth tonnes. So to lower the concentration by 1 ppm requires that the aforesaid 5 billion tonnes be sequestered. That’s a heck of a lot of CO2. As dry ice, at 15.6Kg / cubic metre or 15.6 million tonnes per cubic kilometre (I think) (someone please check my maths) it would occupy about 320 cubic kilometres. That’s ignoring pressurising, freezing and containment equipment. Another way of looking at it is as a block one kilometre high by 32 kilometres long by 10 wide, and that’s still just for 1 ppm. Yet another way to look at it is Rhode Island covered by 61 metres of dry ice!
I could be wrong on the numbers, but I think I’m close on the order of magnitude.
My comments to the e-mail address keep getting returned as undeliverable – is anyone else having this problem?
Just as a follow-up on my post above, by way of comparison, the entire human race alive today occupies about 3.1 cubic kilometres. Really! (not comfortably, perhaps, but not actually compressed)
DAV,
You certainly need to brush up on constitutional law. Congress wrote the first laws concerning the Clean Air Act and the formation of the EPA. The EPA gets its legal powers to regulate pollutants from Congress, and its adminstrative organiaztion from The President. The Courts have no jurisdiction in the case of what the EPA should regulate. That is the resonsibility of Congress. Since CO2 is not poisonous, nor does it “pollute”, the EPA is under no obligation to regulate as such until Congress rewrites the law and the President signs it. The Courts certainly cannot force the EPA to regulate CO2, as the law neither mentions it nor does the law even come close to classifying CO2 as such. So, in this case the Courts are certainly legislating. If the President had more guts, he would instruct the EPA Dir. to ignore the Court’s ruling. If Congress has a problem with this, the President could simply instruct Congress to rewrite the law- something Congress is loathe to do, especially during an election year. Until that happens, the EPA can simply ignore the SCOTUS ruling.