From Yahoo News
h/t to Adolfo Giurfa
EPA for the first time looks to mandate reporting of the gases linked to global warming
WASHINGTON (AP) — The federal government wants to require companies for the first time to disclose how much greenhouse gases they’re releasing.
The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing mandatory reporting of the gases blamed for global warming at approximately 13,000 facilities nationwide.
The facilities include refineries, automobile manufacturers, power plants, coal mines and large manure ponds at farms.
Together, the facilities account for about 85-90 percent of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions.
The EPA requires no reporting of greenhouse gases. The information will be needed if it decides to control greenhouse gases or if Congress passes a law limiting the pollution.
Companies would have to file their first reports in 2011.
Should the the EPA ever demand my report, I think I’ll follow Jim Hansen’s lead and do a little “civil disobedience”. Assuming the trend holds, I’d likely send back something like this:
(when you figure it out)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I lived through a junta in Greece, from 1967 to 1974. let but nationalistic puritanic generals. It was hard to be disobedient.
Our institute, the main scientific institute of Greece at the time, got a general as president, who immediately started imposing army discipline. Even though it was a research center, we had to be present and working at 7:30 in the morning in the winters and at 7:00 in the morning in the summers. One theoritician ( theory tends to have late risers and late sleepers) kept coming in at 9:00. Every day he gave in as an excuse that he went for a medical examination of morning feces.
If the EPA or any government agency attempt to force companies to report emissions then it is a step towards forcing productive companies to purchase carbon credits from unproductive companies.
Once they have that in place they’ll turn towards personal carbon trading. You, a productive member of society, will be forced to buy carbon credits from the lazy dreggs of society. A new class of criminal will be born out of that – carbon crooks. Lazy people who steal for a living so that their carbon credits don’t come down. And mafias who exploit people (the poor, kidnapped girls, illegal aliens, etc) who have with credits.
Start sending evidence to all the companies that the EPA are targeting. Show them that CO2 is not leading to catastrophic climate change. If they are forced to pay for credits they will lay off workers or pass the cost on to consumers. Organise consumer groups and workers to protest against any action by the EPA.
CA and OR already beat the EPA by 2 years. I have to report for 2009 in those states.
Did you see this Guardian article ??
“Greenland ice tipping point ‘further off than thought'”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/10/greenland-ice-sheet-climate-change
From the article:
The giant Greenland ice sheet may be more resistant to temperature rise than experts realised.
Jonathan Bamber, an ice sheet expert at the University of Bristol, told the conference that previous studies had misjudged the so-called Greenland tipping point, at which the ice sheet is certain to melt completely.
It would take an average global temperature rise of 6C to push Greenland into irreversible melting, the new study found.
Previous estimates, including those in the recent reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said the critical threshold was about 3C – which many climate scientists expect to be reached in the coming decades.
Does steam count as a greenhouse gas?
That graph is obviously cherry picking by starting at the 1998 peak. I don’t think our side needs to cherry pick to prove our point.
Does this include water vapor? If not, why not?
This whole thing is just a bunch of sheet!
Think of all the electricity and CO2 which a successful blog is indirectly responsible for. They will be able to tax non-profit dissidents right out of existence, generate more money for the ruling class, and save the planet all at the same time.
Take them to court and make them prove Global Warming
is real and man made!
Even 6C won’t melt most of Greenland’s ice cover. Probably a third at most. And that would not be a catastrophe at all because most of that new fresh water would be absorbed by land like a sponge does.
This is something climate models don’t do well or at all. They do not know how much water land can absorb into water tables. And of course, if we put more and more water to use then we are taking water out of the seas and distributing it elsewhere. Models do not factor any of that.
Step 1 of energy rationing, which will drive up the cost of everything you eat, use, live in or drive.
Priceless !!!
That’s worth a chuckle !!!!
“Together, the facilities account for about 85-90 percent of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions.”
And according to the Department of Energy, transportation accounts for about 1/3 of U.S. CO2 emissions. 90% + 33% = 123%… is this the new math?
CO2 = pollution
When a necessary trace gas gets labeled ‘pollution’ we have already lost this battle.
The science of climate is changing.
Anthony,
Your graph seems a bit out of date. Also, something like this would really provide a clearer picture:
http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j237/hausfath/Picture15-1.png
Or perhaps the residuals with 95th percentile confidence intervals:
http://s81.photobucket.com/albums/j237/hausfath/?action=view¤t=Picture16-1.png
Regardless, its fairly obvious that the divergence between temps and CO2 concentrations over the past 10 decades is well within the range of past variability between the two factors. CO2 increases monotonically. Temperature, surprisingly enough, does not.
REPLY: Its humor, get over yourself. – Anthony
First register how much ‘greenhouse gas’ you are emitting and then what? Organised boycotts of businesses emitting more than the ‘acceptable’ amount? Given some of the utterances (“death trains”) and antics (green custard) of some of the more extreme people on the climate alarmist side we might even see the windows of the buildings of such businesses being smashed in protest. Maybe those young people attending that ‘training’ session in Washington a while ago will be organised to stand outside such businesses to deter people from using them.
A bit extreme? Maybe. But a government which can “Remove “conscience” protections for health workers who refuse to issue contraception” (BBC report) is not a government that is likely to worry too much about people’s civil liberties. For some, it seems like all that matters is that less carbon dioxide is put into the atmopshere; it does not matter too much what the methods are that achieve it. This is what happens when you put considerations of ‘science’ above considerations of ethics.
The federal government wants to require companies for the first time to disclose how much greenhouse gases they’re releasing.
The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing mandatory reporting of the gases blamed for global warming at approximately 13,000 facilities nationwide.
You notice how they only want companies…I wonder who would be the single most emitter of greenhouse gases? Could it be the US government.
Wouldn’t it be interesting to see reporting for say the White House, NASA, the Military and even the EPA…who would they trade with?
Big Government sticking its nose in busineess.
Next step is private lives.
Like I said earlier, they’re gonna overreach, and then there’s going to be a major popular backlash.
People want the government to serve them, and not to shove microscopes where the sun don’t shine.
Get ready to bend over folks. Cuz here it comes!
All the while, they’ll continue flying in their priavte jets.
William R
Call it cherry picking if you wish – point is that temps have taken a turn south over the last 11 years – CONTRARY TO WHAT THE MODELS PREDICTED.
We’re not talking about a nanny state taking over here.
This is going to be more like your clean-freak mother in law coming in to tell you how to look after yourself.
jae (10:35:36), I’m curious to see the report they expect you to complete. How are they measuring the release of CO2, or, more accurately, how are they expecting *you* to measure the release of CO2? Is the gas limited strictly to CO2? Is there a way for the gov’t to check your figures and see whether your measurements are accurate? To where do you send the completed reports?
I’m thinking Sacto might be hiring accountants, and I could use a job… Hmmm. What’s that old adage, something about working from the inside?
The minimum threshold for reporting in the proposed rule is 25,000 metric tons of GHGs, and there are something like 42 industrial source categories for which reporting is required, so individuals will not have to report how much CO2 the exhale.
After the rule is promulgated, it will still not be the first EPA rule to require GHG reporting. Electric generating plants have been reporting CO2 emissions for years now under the Acid Rain Program – see EPA’s Clean Air Markets website if you want to download CO2 emissions data for your favorite local utility.
Psiiiuuu:
may be deducted in:
Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
This is crazy, probably completely exterminate the American companies.