In my opinion, this is lunacy – Obama’s thinking is completely off the rails now. He cites a new energy plan in August, then cripples it from the start with this sort of thinking. – Anthony
From Bloomberg News: Obama to Declare Carbon Dioxide Dangerous Pollutant
Obama to Declare Carbon Dioxide Dangerous Pollutant (Update1)
By Jim Efstathiou Jr. Last Updated: October 16, 2008 09:50 EDT
Oct. 16 (Bloomberg) — Barack Obama will classify carbon dioxide as a dangerous pollutant that can be regulated should he win the presidential election on Nov. 4, opening the way for new rules on greenhouse gas emissions.
The Democratic senator from Illinois will tell the Environmental Protection Agency that it may use the 1990 Clean Air Act to set emissions limits on power plants and manufacturers, his energy adviser, Jason Grumet, said in an interview. President George W. Bush declined to curb CO2 emissions under the law even after the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that the government may do so.
If elected, Obama would be the first president to group emissions blamed for global warming into a category of pollutants that includes lead and carbon monoxide. Obama’s rival in the presidential race, Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona, has not said how he would treat CO2 under the act.
Obama “would initiate those rulemakings,” Grumet said in an Oct. 6 interview in Boston. “He’s not going to insert political judgments to interrupt the recommendations of the scientific efforts.”
Placing heat-trapping pollutants in the same category as ozone may lead to caps on power-plant emissions and force utilities to use the most expensive systems to curb pollution. The move may halt construction plans on as many as half of the 130 proposed new U.S. coal plants.
The president may take action on new rules immediately upon taking office, said David Bookbinder, chief climate counsel for the Sierra Club. Environment groups including the Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council will issue a regulatory agenda for the next president that calls for limits on CO2 from industry.
`Hit Ground Running’
“This is what they should do to hit the ground running,” Bookbinder said in an Oct. 10 telephone interview.
Separately, Congress is debating legislation to create an emissions market to address global warming, a solution endorsed by both candidates and utilities such as American Electric Power Co., the biggest U.S. producer of electricity from coal. Congress failed to pass a global-warming bill in June and how long it may take lawmakers to agree on a plan isn’t known.
“We need federal legislation to deal with greenhouse-gas emissions,” said Vicki Arroyo, general counsel for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change in Arlington, Virginia. “In the meantime, there is this vacuum. People are eager to get started on this.”
An Obama victory would help clear the deadlock in talks on an international agreement to slow global warming, Rajendra Pachauri, head of a United Nation panel of climate-change scientists, said today in Berlin. Negotiators from almost 200 countries will meet in December in Poznan, Poland, to discuss ways to limit CO2.
`Back in the Game’
“The U.S. has to move quickly domestically so we can get back in the game internationally,” Grumet said. “We cannot have a meaningful impact in the international discussion until we develop a meaningful domestic consensus. So he’ll move quickly.”
Burning coal to generate electricity produces more than a third of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions and half the U.S. power supply, according to the Energy Department. Every hour, fossil-fuel combustion generates 3.5 million tons of emissions worldwide, helping create a warming effect that “already threatens our climate,” the Paris-based International Energy Agency said.
The EPA under Bush fought the notion that the Clean Air Act applies to CO2 all the way to the Supreme Court. The law has been used successfully to regulate six pollutants, including sulfur dioxide and ozone. Regulation under the act “could result in an unprecedented expansion of EPA authority,” EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson said in July. The law “is the wrong tool for the job.”
Proponents of regulation are hoping for better results under a new president. Obama adviser Grumet, executive director of the National Commission on Energy Policy, said if Congress hasn’t acted in 18 months, about the time it would take to draft rules, the president should.
EPA Authority
“The EPA is obligated to move forward in the absence of Congressional action,” Grumet said. “If there’s no action by Congress in those 18 months, I think any responsible president would want to have the regulatory approach.”
States where coal-fired plants may be affected include Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Texas, Montana, Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Georgia and Florida.
The alternative, a national cap-and-trade program created by Congress, offers industry more options, said Bruce Braine, a vice president at Columbus, Ohio-based American Electric. The world’s largest cap-and-trade plan for greenhouse gases opened in Europe in 2005.
Under a cap-and-trade program, polluters may keep less- efficient plants running if they offset those emissions with investments in projects that lower pollution, such as wind-energy turbines or systems that destroy methane gas from landfills.
McCain `Not a Fan’
“Those options may still allow me to build new efficient power plants that might not meet a higher standard,” Braine said in an Oct. 9 interview. “That might be a more cost-effective way to approach it.”
McCain hasn’t said how he would approach CO2 regulation under the Clean Air Act. McCain adviser and former Central Intelligence Agency director James Woolsey said Oct. 6 that new rules may conflict with Congressional efforts. Policy adviser Rebecca Jensen Tallent said in August that McCain prefers a bill debated by Congress rather than regulations “established through one agency where one secretary is getting to make a lot of decisions.”
“He is not as big of a fan of standards-based approaches,” Arroyo said. “The Supreme Court thinks it’s clear that there is greenhouse-gas authority under the Clean Air Act. To take that off the table probably wouldn’t be very wise.”
More Efficient Technologies
How new regulations would affect the proposed U.S. coal plants depends on how they are written, said Bill Fang, climate issue director for the Edison Electric Institute, a Washington-based lobbying group for utilities. About half of the proposed plants plan to use technologies that are 20 percent more efficient than conventional coal burners.
“Several states have denied the applicability of the Clean Air Act to coal permits,” Fang said in an Oct. 10 interview.
In June, a court in Georgia stopped construction of the 1,200- megawatt Longleaf power plant, a $2 billion project, because developer Dynegy Inc. failed to consider cleaner technology.
An appeals board within the EPA is considering a challenge from the Sierra Club to Deseret Power Electric Cooperative‘s air permit for its 110-megawatt Bonanza coal plant in Utah on grounds that it failed to require controls on CO2. One megawatt is enough to power about 800 typical U.S. homes.
“Industry has woken up to the fact that a new progressive administration could move quickly to make the United States a leader rather than a laggard,” said Bruce Nilles, director of the group’s national coal campaign.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The problem here is the notion of control & effects previously applied in controlling NO2, CO or other gas emissions doesn’t apply to CO2. Even under the worst scenarios, CO2 emissions do not immediately impact human health and there are no data that show where CO2 levels impact temperatures in a predictable or discreet manner. The whole thing is utterly fuzzy, it’s ostensible proactive do-good regulation that belies deeper, monied politics. There’s no reason – other than big financial contributions from big players in CO2 derivatives – to do such a thing, even Europe is backing away from it.
It troubles me to see this trend creeping along elsewhere, a similar problem is posed in the politics-driven move to inoculate young girls against genital warts as a precondition of continued enrollment in public schools. It trumps a century of prudent epidemiology and public health to mandate HPV shots, however, since genital warts are not readily communicable in schools.
[…] October 17, 2008 · No Comments Obama to Declare Carbon Dioxide Dangerous Pollutant […]
Pamela Gray (20:43:50) :
“Now old construction worker, you know that is just your spin. From what source do you get this information? Is it credible? Does it make sense against the tax proposals Obama is putting out there? If we are to have any kind of effective discussion that has any hope of making people think, spin will not do.”
Pamela, I’m not spinning. Follow the money.
I’m going to make a BOLD statement. I don’t pay any taxes though my business and I’ll bet you a dime to a donut, though your employer, you don’t either. My clients pay my taxes the same as your employer’s clients pay your taxes.
All taxes related to any goods and/or services are paid for by the end user.
In the long run, higher taxes will be reflected in the price of goods and/or services.
So Obama definition of rich is anybody who has a job is not a spin, it’s the bottom line.
Wow. I guess passion can lead to fear. I prefer to keep my passion where it belongs, in the bedroom doing fun stuff. There is only one person on this planet that I hate and that is Bin Ladin. If we ever find him, I would gladly take the gun from the executioner’s hand and shoot him myself. Anyone else just doesn’t get my feathers ruffled much. Not Bush, Cheney, or even that guy who sits on the toilet with his feet spread too far. Some of the rhetoric I have seen here seems like it borders on the paranoid side of thinking. Right now, I’m more concerned about pumpkin prices in Pendleton, Oregon. A standard size, orange pumpkin can sell for as much as $17.00. They are far more expensive than gas right now. That just doesn’t compare to the rather narrow difference between the two candidates we are talking about here. They both say they will bring scrutiny and regulation to government. They both say that tax cuts are coming. They both say that we should stop putting CO2 into the air. They both say that we should study all potential sources of energy. Yes there are some differences when you read further down the page. But over all, there just isn’t much there in either camp to lose sleep over. On both sides of the red/blue divide, these candidates are just trying to convince us that neither one will do the same thing Bush has done for the last 8 years. I would rather spend my time talking about why I was the only one here who mentioned that there was a cycle 23 area on the Sun at the same time there were cycle 24 areas. While it didn’t produce a spot worth numbering, it was a definite cycle 23 that with just a bit more umph, would have given us something bigger than a burnt pixel.
What a trial lawyers’ dream, CO2 as a pollutant! Why, we put the stuff into our bodies every day in the form of soft drinks, beer etc. This should be worth loads more than lead, asbestos, tobacco, you name it. I can see it now, the politicians lining up the executives of Coca Cola and Pepsi, demanding to see their documents, accusing them of poisoning the population in order to line their pockets with the evil and ill gotten gains of CO2… Not only killing the planet but the people as well…
Dear old construction worker, let me use your logic. You believe that companies earning lots of money shouldn’t have to pay taxes because when they do, our prices go up. We actually have a recent case to study. The tax break Bush gave to those with uber fat paychecks on capital gains and dividends taxes was supposed to then work the other way, known as the trickle down theory. Which some think is a better way of spreading the wealth. According to this theory, and the spin surrounding it when the tax break was passed, when taxes are reduced, we should pay less for produce, products, and services, right? Didn’t happen. Even when controlling for energy prices, that didn’t happen. Half the money went to stock holders as increased returns, and there is no evidence that suggests that the other half went to lowering prices, or upgrading equipment, or hiring new employees. What is interesting is that when Bush sent us all a bit of money to jump start the economy, it actually did. Unfortunately it just didn’t last long enough to be called anything but a tiny tim. So when the little guy gets money in his pocket, he/she buys stuff. But when the fat cats get more money in their pockets, they give it to stock holders. Stock holders don’t make stuff, build stuff, or service stuff.
So tell me again about trickle down versus trickle up. Show me the data, any data, that has shown that a tax reduction given to just the upper crust, and there was a nice size one authored by Bush, lead to lower prices. I can show you data that demonstrates when WE get the money, we support our local businesses.
I am all for a tax break for those of us who live on a whole lot less than a corporation. With that money, I will make the CEO happy. But if you give the money to the CEO, he will not make me happy. However, if you are a stockholder, you will be happy. That is till now. That bubble in the stock market was in part due to increased stock dividends as a result of the tax break on them. So now, not even the stock holders are happy. Tell me again who is happy with trickle down economics?
If CO2 is really to be regulated, the EPA regs issued under the authority of the Clean Air Act (CAA) is not the best way to do it (I read that somewhere and recall that it made sense but don’t ask me for details). Congress should do it under a different construct if they really want to do it “right”. Actually if they really want to do it efficiently, simply taxing it would create the least amount of administrative waste versus cap and trade.
Having said that, CO2 as a pollutant is still an absolute fraud. But if I try to search for some pseudo rationality excuse for the fraudsters position, I would propose that they are mixing up the proxy for the pollutant. CO2 has a specific proxy for pollution for a given burn technology. Before the CAA, it was a stronger proxy, given the burn technology of the day (which may be close to what China’s technology is today (?)). After CAA the burn technology improved significantly and Co2 is now a much weaker proxy for pollution.
This illustrates the folly of worrying explicitly about CO2. If resources were applied to improving on burn technologies, the pollution could be even further reduced and CO2 would a become weaker and weaker proxy for pollution. Just athought. Water vapor tis also a proxy for pollution, and its the dominant green house gas. I think we should cap water vapor emissions :o)
The tax break Bush gave to those with uber fat paychecks on capital gains and dividends taxes was supposed to then work the other way, known as the trickle down theory.
The cap gains cut was across the board. Anyone with a 401K is part of it.
And there’s a word for “trickle-down economics”.
That word is “economics”.
What does one suppose a rich man does with his money? Pile it in a great heap and sleep on it for a bed?
No!
he does one or more of the following. He . . .
A.) Spends it.
B.) Hires people with it.
C.) Invests it (in folks who hire people).
D.) Banks it (and the bank invests it).
What are they teaching in these schools?— C.S. Lewis
Pamela,
I know that the MSM keeps beating the drum and mis informing us that the Bush tax cuts were only for the rich, but that is just another lie. The following was extracted for an article by Chris Edwards from the Cato institute and shows that every tax bracked was reduced, not just the rich. I know that I personally enjoyed a significant reduction in taxes (I don’t consider myself rich), you might want to check how much your rate was reduced. Also many were removed from paying any taxes, I think that the number is that 44% don’t pay any taxes at all as the result of the Bush tax cuts. Of course it is difficult to reduce taxes from zero unless you give $$ back to those don’t pay at all.
Check these numbers out :
2001. President Bush came into office promising a range of income tax cuts. He succeeded in getting a 10-year $1.35 trillion tax cut plan through Congress in 2001. It was the largest tax cut since 1981. Some key elements were:
A reduction of individual income tax rates from 15, 28, 31, 36, and 39.6 percent to 10, 15, 25, 28, 33, and 35 percent;
An increase in the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000;
A phased-in reduction in estate taxes, and a one-year repeal in 2010;
A big expansion of tax-favored retirement savings plans.
And of course another significant reduction the capital gains tax was reduced from 20% to 15%. Finally there is now no capital gains on primary home sales under 500,000 dollars for a couple.
Obama and the media are just not honest about this, and I believe he is not being honest when he indicates he will allow some drilling and will think about Nuclear. That is just campaign talk in my book. The Pelosi drill for oil bill was over 50 miles ofshore where there is very little oil, very expensive to recover. and in very limited regions. It was designed to fool the people. It did not fool me! There is a difference between Obama and McCain on this issue.
We will all be better off when the government has complete control of every penny. That way the government can give money to everyone who needs it. It worked for the USSR.
Well, you have to hand it to the left for vast overreach.
If Obama does get elected, taxes swell, carbon cap and trade plans are put in place, CO2 is a pollutant, nuclear energy is shunned. Regulation is increased. Redistribution begins.
It won’t take long before such egregious policy backfires, wakes the American people and keeps Democrats out of office for a long time, whilst the adults repair the economic damage.
But last I checked, November 4th isn’t for another two weeks. You can still vote FOR a little fiscal sanity, and AGAINST the media that is doing its best to sell you AGW and get Obama elected.
No matter who wins the Presidency, given the national shift towards mindless socialism we are surely facing economic collapse. The new restraints on capitalism from enviro-wackos will not affect the climate one millionth of a degree, but poverty will descend upon us all. And the environment will become vastly more degraded than it would have been if wealth creation was allowed to flourish. It’s a lose-lose and then lose some more proposition.
Quite frankly I lost a lot of respect for both presidential candidates with their dealings of the pig of a bailout they both voted for. Unfortunately looking over the other candidates that will be on the ballots of most states with Obama and McCain .. Personally I dont see anyone I would vote for.
http://www.votesmart.org/election_president.php
http://www.politics1.com/p2008.htm
However,
“Every two years we vote for the entire House of Representatives and 1/3 the Senate”
The presidential position has its limitations. I think that where the true change could come this year is by voting wisely on your congress. Listen to what they say about global warming, and the current financial crisis.. I bet you can find someone that doesnt tote the baggage your current rep does.. basically Im sayin dont do the party line if the person does not meet your standards. State by state is the way we voice our opinions. Whoever is president can lead congress to Co2 but they cant make them exhale:)
The IPCC has endorsed Obama:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601130&sid=aZ_LkUY_sJUc&refer=environment
Please vote for McCain!
Re Don Shaw (23:49:32) : A reduction of individual income tax rates from 15, 28, 31, 36, and 39.6 percent to 10, 15, 25, 28, 33, and 35 percent;
An increase in the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000;
A phased-in reduction in estate taxes, and a one-year repeal in 2010;
A big expansion of tax-favored retirement savings plans.
Poor George, never did communicate well. His tax cut actually reduced the poorest contributor 33.3% (15% to 10%). The next poorest recieved almost a 50% reduction. And the wealthiest about a 10% reduction.
Still pussyfooting around with the genial comments I see. The wishful Democrat president declares his avowed attention to wipe out the USA economy and you Americans are NOT incensed? We in the UK have had 11 years of ZaNuLabour and our economy is going down the drain because we are still in the EU. I could give you all chapter & verse about how our economy has been killed by the dead hand of totalitarian socialism, but I doubt many of you would understand the arcane workings of http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31997L0009:EN:HTML
and the politics of denial.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2008/10/politics-of-denial.html
Instead, please devote just a few moments to reading Carbon Dioxide Regulation Under the Clean Air Act from http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Carbon_Dioxide_Regulation_Under_the_Clean_Air_Act.pdf
America, do not stick your collective heads in the noose that is being dangled in front of you all. Socialism kills far worse than cigarettes.
“Then get it out of here and get the shovels.”
I don’t think those are the tools of change we’ll be seeing wielded to address your ‘population’ problem.
They’re speaking of outlawing knives just now in GB.
The irony that our economic problems were brought about by a combination of naive, corrupt leadership and a confusion of models with reality.
This is, I submit, the same combination of fallacy and stupidity that is leading us in the climate issue.
Now this is a discussion. The opposing view, especially from Don, is appreciated. Evan, 401k plans are exempt from capital gains taxes or cuts in those taxes. See the following article. Studies show that tax cuts given to rich corporations and individuals provide only a one time gain in revenues. After the first sell off of stocks to avoid taxes, revenues tank to below what they were when the taxes were in place. Why? Studies don’t have definitive answers on this. But the economy does not increase. So maybe people and corporations who make a lot of money find other ways to tax hide money. Unfortunately, it is not in new jobs or pay raises. It does not lower food prices or any other prices. And job growth is not affected. Studies do show that it never makes its way to the lower and middle class. The divide just gets wider. I am aware that there are many people in the US who believe that if you earned it, you should get to keep it. I can certainly understand that. Right now I make $59,000 per year. My take home pay is $4,000 per month. That’s $11,000 I don’t see. Taxes take the biggest bite, followed by medical insurance, and all the other things that are deducted from a paycheck. By the time I pay for rent, car, other insurance, food, college loans, license renewels, and utilities, the CEO of the local furniture chain ain’t gonna see my money but maybe once every 10 years.
Besides, aren’t tax breaks for the top level just another way of redistributing wealth? Why is it when the lower to middle income bracket gets a tax cut, it is called a bad name, but when the higher brackets get a tax break it’s the American way? Every study that has been peer reviewed and published in major economic journals clearly show, using straight forward math, not “modeling”, that tax breaks for the upper income brackets do not result in trickle down. There is far more evidence to show that when lower and middle income workers have more money to spend on non-essentials, they do exactly that. You can ask if you want to, but I believe the CEO of the local furniture chain would be dancing in the streets if he could sell more inventory instead of paying taxes on it.
http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2008/4/29/3667106.html
All,
as we have some numbers loose on this post, I would like to offer this and ask if you’ll think that it is common political knowledge? (thats supposing they can read)
The latest estimates from the International Monterey Fund (IMF) is that the global total of derivative contracts outstanding is, $1.125 quadrillion, whereas global GDP is about $50 trillion.
Now if you calculate to make this $1.125 quadrillion yield a lowly 1% it would take $11.25 trillion to pay the interest.
DOOMED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It takes a quarter of global GDP just to pay a 1% yield.
And now tell me, who’s got the plan to fix this?
Carbon dioxide is a completely natural part of the atmosphere and all mammal and plant life depends on it. If it is to be declared a form of pollution then nature is by far the biggest polluter.
What nonsense. I find this profoundly depressing. Is the world going mad? It feels like it.
If some people think CO2 is a pollutant then there are an awful lot of plants who would beg to disagree. It’s what they breathe, for Heaven’s sake….
Chris
Isn’t Obama discriminating against water vapor? After all, for every molecule of CO2 produced during combustion of organic carbons, one molecule of water vapor is produced. And water vapor is a greenhouse gas that accounts for more than half of the greenhouse gas effect in the atmosphere and is present at up to 100 times more concentration than CO2. I think that water vapor has every right to be classified as a dangerous environmental pollutant along side of CO2. I demand equal treatment of water vapor!
Well your current government has had a rolling disaster with the environment and finance so it may well be possible that Obama may well have both a good relationship with the environment and financially.
Low CO2 and high US wealth, can’t really argue with that. Will make a change from what you have had recently.
Regards
Andy
Pamela,
I appreciate the oppportunity to communicate with you and provide the data I posted earlier that corrects the lies of the MSM and Obama, claiming that the tax cuts were just for the rich. Unfortunately you are not the only person to believe those distortion of the facts. These are facts not my views.
Re your comment:
“Now this is a discussion. The opposing view, especially from Don, is appreciated. Evan, 401k plans are exempt from capital gains taxes or cuts in those taxes. See the following article. Studies show that tax cuts given to rich corporations and individuals provide only a one time gain in revenues. After the first sell off of stocks to avoid taxes, revenues tank to below what they were when the taxes were in place.”
In 2003 the federal revenues were 1,800,000 million dollars when the Bush tax cuts were implemented that reduced capital gains tax. By 2005 the revenues “tanked” to 2.150,000 million dollars. Thats almost a 20 % increase in revenues. Don’t believe the propoganda of the left. During one Debate Obama even admitted he wanted to increase capital gains taxes even if the revenues were reduced because it would be fairer. That’s class warefare.
Look at this URL for a plot:
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2005/12/growth_in_feder.html
For an update, In 2007 the federal government collected $2.5 trillion, an amount equal to 18.8 percent of GDP. Federal revenue has ranged from 14.4 to 20.9 percent of GDP over the past five decades, averaging 18.0 percent. Where is the tanking of revenues?
I don’t consider myself rich but, I paid a lot more taxes than you did. I suggest you work harder to pick up your share (just joking). Do me a favor and look at the taxes you paid before and after the Bush tax cuts. If you wern’t earning so much then calculate how much you would have paid. I suspect you will owe GWB a lot of thanks for all the $$$$ he put in your pocket every year. I know my taxes would have been much more even though I am not rich in Obama language.
On your comments: “Besides, aren’t tax breaks for the top level just another way of redistributing wealth? Why is it when the lower to middle income bracket gets a tax cut, it is called a bad name, but when the higher brackets get a tax break it’s the American way? ”
Who said that tax breaks for the middle income folks is bad. Bush happily gave them a significant tax break, but they don’t know it due to the spin and lies. Returning taxes collected to those never paid any taxes, as proposed by Obama, is hardly a tax break (only if you are honest about the meaning of words in the English language).
Finally I differ with your interpretation that giving any tax payer a break is redistributing the wealth. Who worked for and earned the $$$ in the first place. It is NOT redistributing the wealth!! It’s stealing less and it provides incentives to work and pay taxes even if one is semi retired like myself. If Obama gets elected , I might quit contributing federal income, state income, medicare, medicade, etc. and live off other peoples labors such as yours.
Pamela Gray (20:16:00) :
‘Dear old construction worker, let me use your logic. You believe that companies earning lots of money shouldn’t have to pay taxes because when they do, our prices go up.’
As far as taxes or any other “cost” the companies,earning lots of money, are nothing more than a conduit for the flow of money to pay for “cost”. Over a period of time all increase in “cost’ are reflected in the price of goods and/or services sold. That’s why ‘A standard size, orange pumpkin can sell for as much as $17.00.’