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)
Steve in SC (15:47:19) :
‘This is just prep for the carbon tax.
The correct response is an unending stream of lawsuits.
Take a page from the greenie book.’
I may have an attorney who will want to take on EPA.
“Bill me Later”
That’s one of those lines that makes me feel like standing up and cheering!
When will the tax on breathing-out be imposed? I assume joggers and those who exercise (those selfish CO2 polluters) will be able to purchase carbon credits from coach potatoes? If I become a coach potato and go into hibernation while this insanity blows over (no pun intended) – will I get reimbursed for all the carbon I did not produce?
I didn’t open a beer just then – can I get a cheque for the carbon I did not release to the atmosphere?
Should we kill all green vegetation (or “CO2 Death Trifids” as I like to call them) now or wait until the plan is fully implemented? I will certainly be organizing rallies to the farms and prairies of the Midwest forcing them to shut down unless they replace their crops with solent green (mmm tasty).
Will murderers be able to claim carbon credits for the additional CO2 they saved the world?
So many questions, so little time…
any idea how much CO2 is produced during a launch of a space schuttle. I want to claim the carbon credits when that program shuts down
helvio (13:21:03) : Those companies should all move to India! Not just they would free themselves of these kind of pressures, they would also force this Administration to rethink their economical priorities.
It’s a little more general than that, but yes. BRIC will be back. (That’s Brazil, Russia, India, China ) though I’d expect that as the CO2 Police swing into it, Russian may have less benefit than the others (it DID sign Kyoto; but could back out).
I find it odd that the hope for economic survival of the world will now hang on recalcitrant Russians backing out of deals and selfish Chinese Communists telling the west to go pound sand on CO2…
EEM is an emerging markets ticker. FXI is a China basket. RSX Russian and EWZ is a Brazil basket. There are several India baskets, but IFN / INP / IIF / EPI tend to track together mostly. Australia is a resource play leveraged to China – EWA or IAF for longer term holdings.
EPI up 6% today in a bounce off the bottom… FXI up 8% in a similar move. EWZ up 7.8% EEM up 8.1% compared to Dow 30 DIA up 5.6% and S&P 500 up 5.9% while RSX Russia is up a whopping 12.9% on the day. Bear market rallies can be astounding!
DISCLOSURE: I own EWZ and EPI. I will likely trade into some FXI for this rally. I tend to avoid RSX just because I’m a coward and don’t like to play in a hardball game with Putin and the Russian Mafia… I sometimes buy EEM as a quick way to get a largely Brazil and China dominated basket, but my heart belongs to Brazil and I often run back to EWZ. I also own IAF the First Australia Fund as an indirect China play in resources. Up 7.4% today AND has a 22% dividend 😎 EWA is more broadly traded (more shares so less of a problem buying or selling a lot) as an Australia bucket – up 7.6% and with a 15.7% dividend I own a chunk of EWA from time to time (it’s easier to buy and sell fast compared to IAF so I trade it more. IAF is more a buy and hold investment.. only traded 47k shares today vs 3 million for EWA…)
My take on this is that as we come of this bottom, BRIC is going to rocket and the U.S.A. will tag along behind saying “Wait, Wait! Wait for ME!!” puffing out of breath wishing it could get a CO2 fix via some added fuel…
But I could be wrong.
Anthony
Regarding a possible entry:
I’m very new at this posting business and have no idea how you decide on the things you present. I don’t see anything on the site that explains this, which may mean you don’t want to be bothered. Thus, I’m sending this in the regular manner of submitting a comment. It doesn’t fit the current theme so I’m not expecting to see it here, and perhaps nowhere. Just asking? Regards, John
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
March dismissed – January recruited to fill in
From John F. Hultquist – on the evening of March 10, 2009
Here is a short bit from the NWS regarding temps in eastern WA state, specifically Spokane.
AREA FORECAST DISCUSSION
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SPOKANE WA
249 PM PDT TUE MAR 10 2009
.SYNOPSIS…
THE WEATHER WILL BE MORE TYPICAL JANUARY THAN MARCH OVER THE
PACIFIC NORTHWEST TONIGHT AND TOMORROW. MANY LONG STANDING
RECORDS WILL BE THREATENED TONIGHT …..
LOOKS LIKE AFTER THE COOL START ON SATURDAY…WE WILL SEE
PROGRESSIVE WARMING THROUGH THE PERIOD WITH TEMPERATURES LIKELY
WARMING TO ABOVE NORMALS BY TUESDAY. TUESDAY FORECAST HIGH IN
SPOKANE IS 51F. THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST TIME ABOVE 50F IN SPOKANE
SINCE NOVEMBER 18…WHICH WOULD TURN OUT TO BE A SPAN OF 117 DAYS.
THIS WOULD BE THE 10TH LONGEST STRETCH ON RECORD IN SPOKANE FOR HIGH
TEMPS BELOW 50F. FX
This follows two mighty blasts of wintry weather that ripped through the Washington Cascades this past week.
I find this interesting because in late January or early February the forecast by Piers Corbyn [ http://www.weatheraction.com/ ] was for early and middle March to be just like this – Polar Outbreaks in these latitudes. I did not save his report and only had the “public media form” so it was not detailed in any case. At the time the March weather forecast was being based on a Sudden Stratospheric Warming (SSW) event which can still be seen here:
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/50mb9065.gif
Note, I’m looking (on day of year 67) at the 50 mb (approx. 20 km.) chart that shows the C temp going from -75 to -42 in January and has just now returned to the 1979 -2007 mean. This was tangentially discusses in February on WUWT
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/22/correlation-demonstrated-bewteen-cosmic-rays-and-temperature-of-the-stratosphere/#more-5254
but didn’t provide an explanation for the stratospheric warming. At that time, I found and posted a report of a January 1989 “minor” SSW warming:
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0493/120/1/pdf/i1520-0493-120-1-221.pdf
Here is a quote:
“The event had a maximum influence on the stratospheric circulation near 2 hPa. The zonal mean circulation reversed briefly in the polar region as the temperature increased 34 K in 3 days. The cause of the warming is shown to be the rapid development and subsequent movement of a warm anomaly, which initially developed in the midlatitudes. The development of the warm anomaly is caused by adiabatic descent, and the dissipation by radiative cooling.”
That the SSW would disrupt and reverse the polar flows (I recall) was the basis of the Piers Corbyn prediction. I’m just back inside from feeding horses and checking their heated water supply. I’m thinking Corbyn’s forecast was either one very good guess or there is considerable predictive power in the goings on in the thin cold polar atmosphere.
I can’t add anything else but I’m sure some others can. Thanks, John
Re: JP (15:38:52) : and businesses moving overseas.
You hit the nail on the head- excellent point.
This is the reason these fundamentalist environmentalists are clueless when it comes to enforcing policy or seeing how the real world works – they live in their little simplistic linear worlds where A+B=C and have not the slightest clue as to what their policies could mean down the road.
It is the same reason supporting ethanol led to food shortages (“ooops never thought of that “- duh), the same reason banning DDT led to countless deaths from malaria in the 3rd World (“ooops never thought of that” – duh) etc. etc. etc.
Now we have the great ideas of 1) replace coal and gas-fired power stations with wind farms and solar AND 2) build electric cars which require to be plugged in at night.
So the overnight demand for power will go up (i.e. we will require MORE, NOT LESS power generation than we currently produce) and yet our sources of said power generation will become 100 times more flaky (what happens if the wind aint blowing or its cloudy!!? – better buy a bike, knit a whooly hat and bath once a week I guess).
If these energy policies are pushed forward then everyone can get ready for more frequent brown-outs and black-outs so common in California. Meanwhile, there is good data to suggest that we are in for some colder winters ahead (ever tried driving an electric car in snow?). Welcome to the 70’s.
“ooops never thought of that – DUH
How smart is it to shut down the very industry which saved us from lives of poverty and misery?
Just what we need:
More powerful unions,
More cost on cars
Energy shortages and higher costs
More taxes
More government involvement in everyday life
More criminal prosecution for failure to pay carbon taxes
I’m going to snip myself before I let go of what I really think.
Why can’t we find the proof?
Here It Comes II: click
[good comments after the article]
“old construction worker (15:03:01) : I believe a read some placce that a chip maker maybe closing their plant in Californina instead of compiling with the New CO2 regulation. Job lost, 2000-3000 range.”
There’s nothing like more regulation and higher taxes for making a recession worse!
Don’t be too hard on the EPA. This situation came about with a Supreme Court ruling, Commonwealth of Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al, which, in effect, found that co2 is a pollutant implying that AGW is a fact and that EPA must act unless they can prove that co2 is not a harmful GHG. EPA’s original position was that there was not enough evidence that co2 was harmful. They wanted to wait until AGW science was settled before making a ruling.
Are there other examples of environmental rulings by the Supreme Court where the court’s scientific expertise was claimed? How is the constitution being upheld with such a ruling? A classic example of environmentalists bypassing the legislative branch with judicial legislation.
What a lot of people don’t realize about Geneva is that it had an awful lot to do with making it perfectly legal to execute illegal combatants. Not to protect them. To execute them.
When unarmed German saboteurs landed in the US, we executed them even though they had, as of yet, committed no act of sabotage.
Three guys walk into a bar and order drinks which they quickly toss back.
The first guy says “Today I caught three armed robbers, and rescued a busload of hostage school children from a gang of serial killers – I love my job, I work for the FBI.”
The second guy says “Ha – so what…, I strangled a north korean spy and made love with a beautiful russian double-agent – I love my job, I work for the CIA.”
The third guy says “Dang – that’s nothing…, I tanked the american economy and pushed all manufacturing to China – I really love my job, I work for the EPA.”
At the Climate Conference, people were looking for simple arguments the layman can latch onto. I intend to supply those, using fewer words and simpler concepts than has been done previously. Such as might prove useful in the upcoming political struggle.
John, I live in Pullman, WA (seventy miles south of Spokane). The temp is currently at 9F, which is a record low for this date. The sky is clear. I wouldn’t be surprised if we didn’t drop to single digits below zero. Last year, my husband sarcastacly commented to me that no one lived here during the last ice-age. We have no historical record of how cold it can get on the Palouse. My furnace is running nearly non-stop spewing carbon emissions, but to no avail, we are still bitterly cold. On the positive side, I do notice a lack of global warming articles in our local media.
Our record low temps will never be recorded because the federal government research facility has been dropped from the GISS data. Did their mercury freeze or what?
evanmjones:
Regarding your point 1, the purpose of the graph is not to show a “trend”, but to show the lack of a direct relationship between the two variables.
Regarding your point 2, this contradicts your point 1, but I agree, it would be inappropriate to start the graph at any point during this time period.
As I am Canadian, I cannot claim to know the American tax system very well. I am curious about President Obama saying that no one making less than $250,000 per year will see any tax increases. Then announcing that a cap and trade implementation will bring in $650 billion. Will this not be felt in the pocketbook by every American? Will the cost not eventually be felt by the consumer in every imaginable product? Is this slight of hand, or am I missing something?
I have today observed a graph related to atmospheric moisture and it looks very familiar.
If anyone could explain the appearance of this presentation I would be most relieved. This thing has been dogging me all day.
http://unstresst2.livejournal.com/132292.html
Click on the wmv
The simple solution to this “problem” is to report massive releases of “greenhouse gases” now so as to allow an immediate reduction and destruction of the “carbon market” shortly after it opens.
I can see a class-action suit or whatever, coming from business, related to something along the lines of taxation without representation or onerous taxation or regulation. I think it will be placed upon the government, by some savvy lawyer, to prove that, A. reporting CO2 is necessary for the health of planet, and B. because of A the government must prove that CO2 is harmful and that reporting CO2 emissions will lead to a reduction in CO2 to safe levels, which will then lead to lower temperatures. End of program. The judge must decide if the regulation is onerous.
“How do you explain the migration of high altitude species to higher latitudes?”
1. There’s a long-term warming trend since the end of the Little Ice Age.
2. Wanderlust? There’s a counter-trend of northerly species moving south (details posted a couple of days ago in one of these threads), and therefore possibly (I infer) of high-altitude species moving lower.
Some of the saner members of the Democratic party need to stop their more wild-eyed fellows from showing the full extent of their AGW delusion. A proper energy policy can only be constructed with respect to reality. We need to focus on economical domestic sources of energy. China is bent on using coal to power themselves into the future. We will have to compete with the efficiencies they obtain.
The politics that drive this AGW theory will break its bones on the facts as they develop and will deeply wound all of the parties and movements that endorsed it.
Aron (10:27:30) :
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.
Aron,
The caps & Trade is initiated by the Mafia.
One of them is Al Gore and you can buy your credits now at his website.
“EPA for the first time looks to mandate reporting of the gases linked to global warming”
Are they looking for HOT AIR?
David Ball (19:45:49) : You get it, just as we do. Sadly, not enough Americans got it in the last election.
Pamela: Big industry is now supporting this scheme. Socialism rewards the few, big players. Government regulation crushes the up and comers from ever competing. That’s why the Soviet Union had such an antiquated system when they collapsed, the few preferable companies had no need to compete. The government took care of them. Get rich to do nothing is the cap and trade system.