In a stunning act of political kowtowing, the EPA caved to special interest groups and politics and declared CO2 a “dangerous pollutant”, even though it is part of the natural cycle of life. Now the gloves come off and the real fight begins during the 60 day public comment period. If you’ve never stood up to “consensus” before, now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country. See instructions below for submitting public comment. – Anthony
Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act
Background
On April 2, 2007, in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), the Supreme Court found that greenhouse gases are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act. The Court held that the Administrator must determine whether or not emissions of greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision. In making these decisions, the Administrator is required to follow the language of section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court decision resulted from a petition for rulemaking under section 202(a) filed by more than a dozen environmental, renewable energy, and other organizations.
Action
You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader, available as a free download, to view some of the files on this page. See EPA’s PDF page to learn more about PDF, and for a link to the free Acrobat Reader.
The Administrator signed a proposal with two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act:
- The Administrator is proposing to find that the current and projected concentrations of the mix of six key greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)—in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. This is referred to as the endangerment finding.
- The Administrator is further proposing to find that the combined emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O, and HFCs from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines contribute to the atmospheric concentrations of these key greenhouse gases and hence to the threat of climate change. This is referred to as the cause or contribute finding.
Today’s proposed action, as well as any final action in the future, would not itself impose any requirements on industry or other entities. An endangerment finding under one provision of the Clean Air Act would not by itself automatically trigger regulation under the entire Act.
Proposed Finding
The Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act was signed on April 17, 2009, and will be published in the Federal Register and available in the Docket (www.regulations.gov) shortly under Docket ID No. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171]. A pre-publication copy is provided below. While EPA has taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this Internet version of the document, it is not the official version.
- Pre-publication copy of the Administrator’s Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act (full version) (PDF) (133 pp, 661KB, About PDF)
Technical analyses developed in support of the Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act may be found here:
- Technical Support Document for the Proposed Findings (PDF) (171 pp, 2.8MB, About PDF)
Submitting Comments on Proposed Finding
The public comment period is open for 60 days following publication in the Federal Register. (Please note that official comments on the proposed finding cannot be submitted until the Federal Register publication).
Written Comments
Written comments on the proposed finding (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171) may be submitted by using the following instructions:
- Instructions for Submitting Written Comments (PDF) (3 pp, 39KB, About PDF)
When providing comments, please submit them with reference to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171.
Public Hearings
There will be two public hearings for this proposed finding. EPA requests those who wish to attend or give public comments, to register on-line in advance of the hearing. EPA will audio web stream both public hearings. The meeting information pages will be updated with this information as it becomes available.
- May 18, 2009, at the EPA Potomac Yard Conference Center, Arlington, VA; and
- May 21, 2009, at the Bell Harbor International Conference Center in Seattle, WA
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I would love to be present the day that an EPA zealot walks into a Hells Angels Bar waving his “Authority” around and demands that they serve their beer flat.
You guys still haven’t got it yet?
This is about giving the Wall Street Boys a new casino.
Yup, that’s right. Sub prime bailed out, they need a new scam to continue their gambling. Now they’ve disarmed the London boys from their ‘market lead’……
Cap N Trade.
And in a few years, they’ll have bankrupted the banks again with phoney climate products and you suckers will be asked to bail them out. Again.
Or is this time about the US exporting all that from day 1 to the rest of the World?
Tell me it’s not……
I hope Fatman and carlbrannen are right that EPA regulations will take years to implement and that they will run out of political support before that happens.
But I don’t think we should underestimate the damage our policymakers can inflict….witness the past six months of reckless spending.
Does anyone know the legal trajectory that will occur? Who will sue the EPA and in what venue? What standards do their findings have to meet?
Seems like the courts will be the best forum to bring down this craziness.
Contact your Senator and Congressperson to voice your opposition.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml
http://stevebelden.wordpress.com/
You know I believe it was on this site or CA a year ago that someone mentioned this upcoming decision. I think this is a prime example of the power of linear thinking, cause = effect, and how we still haven’t moved on in any meaningful way as to consider more subtle and complex interactions.
“CO2 goes up, temperature goes up. Look its a no-brainer” is a kind of comment we get. Maybe it is that simple, but I need it shown to me that it is.
This type of legislation will move on the UK in a bit I can see it now.
I laughed the other day at the Huxley quote about sense being overridden by democratic vote, as if people would vote against the law of gravity. Well this may just be a vote against non-linear systems.
I’ll await the point when we have to ‘fill the mineshaft gap’.
For decades we have been urged to urgently prepare for unprecedented global warming or there will be gloom and doom for the world. Yet only few years after the issue of their 2007 or latest report, exactly the opposite is happening. Matter of fact global cooling already started after 2002 and the long term climate trend is totally in the opposite direction of that predicted by the global warming science.
So why are we taxing people for carbon and proposing even more ‘back door’ taxes via the ‘cap and trade’ mechanism to be followed by even more future green plan taxes to fight global warming that does not even exist.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2003/plot/rss/from:2003/plot/gistemp/from:2003/plot/uah/from:2003/trend/plot/rss/from:2003/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2003/trend
This is the era of scams and very few are prepared to check the facts for themselves. To say that “carbon dioxide poses a risk to public health and welfare” is one of the most unscientific and contrary to any medical findings statement ever made. Every air quality index excludes it because it is harmless. http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/
It would appear to me that we need to change the climate debate somewhat as the AGW science is being shown to be seriously wanting. Initially IPCC used the term GLOBAL WARMING and predicted unprecedented warming starting immediately [0.21C in each of the next two decades]. When this proved to be in error because the planet is actually cooling at a rate of [-0.195/decade since 2002*], the term was switched to FIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE. We are now asked to stop climate change. Well climate change has been with us ever since records were kept and natural climate variability and change is the name of the game on this planet .You cannot stop it. Every natural weather and climate event like the flood at Fargo or the Red River or the latest drought in California, if only slightly more severe than the last one, is falsely blamed on manmade greenhouse gases instead recognizing that there are natural climate cycles that cause these. It seems to me that if one does not pay homage or worship climate change religion, your opinions it does not count. Reminds one of the days when anyone questioned the reality of the weapons of mass destruction and wisdom of going to war in Iraq, he or she was falsely accused of being unpatriotic. Just because all the intelligence agencies of all major nations said they were real, genuine errors were still made by all. The same error may be being made today with respect to non existing global warming.
Now that term” fight global change” has been proven to be wrong as well, a new term is being used REDUCE THE CARBON PRINT. This term will also prove to be wrong as Nature knows how to deal with excess carbon. It is neither a threat nor a pollutant. It is not even included in the AIR QUALITY INDEX. Highs and lows of carbon dioxide far greater than current have existed well before we came to play a significant role on this planet.
However we have forgotten the term REDUCE POLLUTION which was the true legitimate fight until the global warming sidetracked everyone like the war in Iraq sidetracked the fight in Afghanistan. Fighting pollution involves real pollutants like NOX, SO2, CO, GROUND LEVEL OZONE, SMOG, LEAD and PARTICULATE MATTER. These kill people TODAY, not a 100 years from now. We should focus on the problems of today not those that are a century, 200 years or 1000 years from now as some studies suggest. When were lower targets for these real pollutants last discussed in the headlines? Whether we are talking about short term or long term, reducing real pollutants should be our battle. Becoming aware of natural climate cycles that cause floods like the one in Fargo, North Dakota or in the Winnipeg region in Manitoba this year and learning how to better prepare for the cooler weather ahead are all worthy goals. So is the goal of improving energy efficiency, the development of pollution free energies and a reduction of our dependence on foreign fuels. Let’s do the right thing and do it for the right reason instead of just focusing on carbon dioxide.
Summer 2009: The international monetary system’s breakdown is underway
The perspective of a US default this summer is becoming clearer as public debt is now completely out of control with skyrocketing expenses (+41%) and collapsing tax revenues (-28%), as LEAP/E2020 anticipated more than a year ago. In March 2009 alone, the federal deficit has nearly reached USD 200-billion (way above the most pessimistic forecasts), i.e. a little less than half of the deficit recorded for the entire year 2008 (a record high year)… (page 2)
(Learn more)
Will cap’n-trade happen? I doubt it!
Will CO2 be banned? I doubt it!
Will this administration be re-elected? I doubt it!
Will the US economy collapse? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm!
First, I believe we must take the time to issue comments as described by Roger Sowell.
Second, I also believe it won’t make any difference but still needs to be done as a first step.
Third, I believe that in the end it will take lawsuits to make the EPA document how they came to the conclusion that “the atmospheric concentrations of these key greenhouse gases and hence to the threat of climate change” “threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations”. The basis of the suit would, IMO, be based on how they determined what the correct temperature of the entire Earth should be in order to prevent this threat to public health and how they intend to keep the entire Earth at this constant temperature.
As I have been saying for months now, this is NOT ABOUT SCIENCE. As much as the AGWers wanna scream about the evidence being on their side and the debate being closed, etc., this (once again) HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE. That is only being used as a shield and a cover for manipulation of the law to achieve an ideological agenda. It is a re-ordering of society based on a perceived universal threat. It is softer than though als more insidious than Communism. I knew Congress would never go for anything this stupid, so that the EPA would have to act on the “threat.” Congress, being controlled by the Democrats, and most of the Republicans being useless on this issue, can now look the other way while the Executive branch, defender of America abroad, destroys America at home. So now we have an unelectable, unaccountable beauracracy controlling vast expanses of the American economy. Congress, so long as it is led by Pelosi, et al. will never bat an eyelash. Obama will be president for 3 more years and will no doubt use the EPA’s authority to re-shape various markets (energy, automotive, etc.) to suit his agenda. By the time Republicans gain any political traction back, it will probably be too late.
I encourage everyone to fill out the form for Public Comment on this to the EPA. I shall do the same. But personally, in the end, I think the conclusion has already been reached and it won’t matter what anyone outside of D.C. and its circles of power thinks. The ship has sailed on that one.
If CO2 is a pollutant and pollutants are bad then less CO2 would always be better than more CO2; and no CO2 would be better than some CO2. What would the planet be like with no CO2?
This is fascism. The molecule is the problem. The molecule is evil. It is to be feared. It is to be hated. it is to be eradicated.
Once the Government controls the molecule, and all activities relating to the molecule, they control everything. Give the Government the authority to control, regulate and tax the molecule and you surrender all Constitutional, statutory or civil liberties. Assuming the exercise thereof entails breathing.
This ruling is driven purely by political ideology. Being from NJ I know that Lisa Jackson was the former head of our DEP and is deeply involved in liberal-democratic politics. I can only imagine what would “fly” if she ruled that C02 was in fact not a pollutant. The only way we non-scientists can affect this ruling is by appealing to the political class and their endless desire to be re-elected. I wonder if they realize that their political future may be in jeopardy if they go along with this charade and in fact the “global warming” really turns out to be “global cooling”. I sent this letter to the President, my congressman and the local newspaper but my next one will include more of how they may all look like fools if the climate doesn’t go along with this charade.
President Obama repeatedly states that we must separate politics from science yet when it concerns “cap and trade” and regulating CO 2 emissions, which the EPA has absurdly determined is a “health hazard” the science takes a back seat. The fact that over 750 internationally renowned scientists have signed onto the U.S. Senates Minority Report debunking CO 2 as the driver of global warming speaks volumes. When the President said in November “The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.” The Cato Institute’s response was “With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true.” with a letter signed by over 100 scientists in related fields. This isn’t the “consensus” that Al Gore was hoping for. The real consensus is that the earth stopped warming in 1998 and has leveled off and actually cooled in the last couple of years. The consensus is that CO 2 is an effect not the cause. The consensus is that mans influence on the climate is miniscule compared to the natural changes. The consensus is that man can’t control the climate but the politicians can and will try to control every facet of our lives. This attempt to regulate CO 2 with their more appropriately called “cap and tax” policy will do next to nothing to reduce the amount of CO 2 in the atmosphere, but it will certainly reduce the amount of money in your wallet. I should have added or is this just “deja vu all over again” like the 1970’s “Ice Age Scare”
It sounds like there is a push on from some quarters to move the USA into some sort of “utopian” non-technological agrarian society powered by wind and unicorns(the non-methane-producing kind).
Sukiho (02:53:49) :
“- good point, surely it could be easily disproved if it is so untrue, why no papers disproving it yet? maybe there are political motivations but that wouldn’t stop one of the posters here writing a paper proving once and for all that CO2 is an insignificant greenhouse gas one would think.”
LOL. The fact is there is no way to “PROVE” much of anything related to climate because it a massively complex and unpredictable phenomenon. That’s why you don’t see any papers “proving” AGW either. What you see is computer models that are far too simple and incomplete.
If science was as smart as you appear to think it is, then why haven’t all diseases been cured? Why do we still have no clue about gravity? Why has this latest quiet sun cycle been such a surprise to most solar scientists? (I could go on forever). Once you understand that the sciences of complex systems is still in it’s infancy will you understand exactly what is going on.
Eric Anderson (22:42:16) :
Excellent points Eric. This needs to be argued to expose the main weaknesses and we need to focus on a select few talking points. I agree with all of your points except the last one about water vapor. It is also an important talking point since the evidence points to a very strong negative feedback for water vapor and clouds, i.e., that the cooling effect of clouds and convection carrying heat far higher into the atmosphere where the heat is easily exchanged to space is far stronger than the warming effect of additional water vapor in a radiative sense. +feedback is the basis of the AGW machine and is THE reason all GCM’s fail in the same way. This is an important fact to pound home.
In the letter below, Christopher Monckton clarifies and supports his congressional testimony in March, and raises 50 “red flags” about testimony others gave in congressional hearings in March (inconsistencies or potentially fraudulent points he thinks deserve further review and questions to be raised for other presenters). This is perhaps the best summary I have seen to date that crushes the AGW alarmist position:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/markey_and_barton_letter.pdf
This has been posted before, but really folks, if you’re here, you need to read this entire document. Twice. Among the 50 red flags, there are some very good talking points you can bring up in responding to the EPA. Please review and comment about which major points should be the focus of our attention. Thanks.
Sounds like a real opportunity to fix the credit crunch
A new tax on breathing should do it
The lessons of history:
http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/germany/sp001630/peter.html#bib1
PS:More than 15 days not showing the above link.
Fatman is right that this will take years
No, it won’t. In 61 days we’ll see the new regs. We already have a SC decision. They’ll say it’s “Urgent” or “emergency” or some such and just put the regs in place. Thing is, while this is going on, no company in their right minds will expand our build any new capacity till they see what the effects of all this will be, deepening the reccession we are currently in.
I have to read all the comments here on this, but I wanted to do this writing while I have my coffee.
Chris Horner has made this point, part of this is to scare industry into supporting cap and trade. If they don’t go for the cap and trade they may get worse from the EPA. And some of them have gone along with it (Exxon).
One of my favorite few paragraphs in the books I have read is the opening of the typhoon chapter in the Caine Mutiny. Wouk describes the warship and the typhoon as living things in a struggle. He gives the advantage to the warship, so to win the typhoon has to frighten the captain. It makes noises and sends waves to make him do something foolish. As long as the captain keeps his head, the warship has enough horsepower and engineering to ride out a storm. If the Captain loses his head and gives into his fears, the ship dies.
I suspect much of the PR sales pitch for the EPA branding CO2 as dangerous will be about the “green economy” and “green jobs.” A study from the University of Illinois explodes those myths: http://www.law.illinois.edu/prospective-students/news/article.asp?id=1059
=====================
Much of the study examines the methodology used by various special interest groups to calculate how many green jobs new energy policies would create. Starting with simple fundamentals, these studies do not define new job creation in an economically sound manner failing to account for employment productivity or efficient use of labor. These basic flaws make comparison of job claims almost impossible and thus fail to create a statistical consensus.
“Economic analysis is not a matter of justifying policy goals by making optimistic assumptions and ignoring those realities that fail to support your objectives,” said Dr. William Bogart, Dean of Academic Affairs and Professor of Economics at York College of Pennsylvania, another study author. “Our work here clearly shows that the foundations of these “green” jobs claims do not measure up to the kind of research standards we should demand when evaluating change in direction for our economy.”
The study notes that one of the major flaws in existing research is its failure to acknowledge that mandating a move to new “green” sectors of the economy and away from fossil fuel-based sectors will shift jobs rather than create new jobs and thus overall economic growth.
=========================
P Folkens
methane, another one of the bad-ass gasses
Pun intended?
I love this blog for info but the facts that are discussed here will have absolutely no factor in the co2 political debate; the fix is in the nazis are in control
I don’t know if this has been posted already, but it is great news:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/environment/energy_update
Fat Man (20:28:05) : Folks, do not panic. This is only one more step in a process that will grind on until everyone thoroughly sick of it. The EPA issued a proposed finding. Now they have to hold hearings, …
Maybe you should look at the path DDT took through the EPA and how the final ruling was achieved. Yes, it will take time but the juggernaut has been released. Not that I’m advocating sitting still but I fear “resistance is futile.”
From the Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/17/obama-administration-emissions-warning
“Environmentalists celebrated the ruling as the most definitive break to date with eight years of “climate denial” under George Bush.”
Evironmentalists have their dodgy dossier too