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
I’d love to help, but being a resident of the former colonial power, I’ll have to sit on the sidelines and watch this one. However may I suggest anyone thinking of submitting comments to the EPA have a good read through of Viscount Monckton’s letter to Congress?
Letter to Represenatives Ed Markey & Joe Barton
I think it’s about the most concise rebuttal of the whole AGW fandango yet written. 51 red flags and a host of graphs, papers and so forth. Frankly, if this was the only submission and the trolls at EPA actually read the damned thing, there might be hope.
carlbrannen (01:47:20) : Having done my share of environmental permitting, I further believe that if they did declare CO2 a pollutant, … Once you get a permit, all you have to do is …
Unfortunately, CO2 has already been declared a pollutant. As for the rest: that process might be fine for a small number of cases. After all, how many of us produce or discharge hydrogen cyanide and how many of us produce CO2? This opens the door to governmental control of everyone without redress. Note that the EPA is proceeding with this DESPITE Congress.
In those states which desire industrial growth, permits are made easier because states are not that stupid;….
You think so? Then why was this lawsuit necessary?
So whats wrong with the GCMs?
Over the past 400K years, CO2 has varied between 175ppmv and 280ppm before industrialization as we transitioned from glacial to interglacial. That is a whopping 65% increase to get this spread. But every increase FOLLOWED temperature rise and every decrease FOLLOWED temperature fall by hundreds to thousands of years. But the climate modelers tell us that while the mechanism that initiates the change is likely due to orbital forcing, once the change occurred, CO2 levels were the main driver in maintaining the temperature. Now that we are approaching 400ppmv, we are told by the climate modelers we’ve reached a “tipping point” and temperatures will soar upward to 4deg C by 2100 as we approach 1000ppmv per the 4th assessment report. Looking back at the Mesozoic, CO2 varied between 1000-2000ppmv (mostly on the higher end) but oxygen isotope data show the temperature varied between 2 and 6deg C warmer than today. During the Eocene that followed, CO2 varied between 2000-3500ppmv and temperatures climbed to 6deg C warmer than today. But suddenly withing a few thousand years, temperatures plummeted to within 1deg C of today’s temperatures and CO2 was where 1500PPMV!! So when the IPCC states that since 1950, climate forcing has been driven by anthropogenic gases that overwhelm natural forcings such as TSI and thermocline, it begs the question, why can’t the GCMs account for the dramatic changes in temperature despite CO2 levels in excess of 1000ppmv if it forces at least a 4deg C temperature increase? Possible answer, there must be one heck of a negative feedback in the system that isn’t in their models.
Why there can be no temperature increasing greenhouse effect in our open atmosphere?
In all their wisdom even skeptic scientists accept the existence of Global Warming and they also accept CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
The only discussion is about how much CO2 influences atmospheric temperatures.
The authors of this article simply say (and proof) that the influence of CO2 on atmospheric temperatures is ZERO, NIL, NADA.
I think they are right. The effect of CO2 in our atmosphere has ZERO effect om temperatures.
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/321/Analysis-Why-there-can-be-no-temperature-increasing-greenhouse-effect-in-our-open-atmosphere
This eliminates CO2 as a greenhouse gas
On the state level, we have the chaos described in the following link breaking out all over California:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20071213/news_lz1e13lowe.html
which proves the state can do anything stupid it wants to do if environmental law is poorly written and based on incomplete science.
I’m looking forward to EPA regulations coming-to-a-face-near-you, requiring all polluters to install personal CHANGE units (Counteract Hazardous Anthorpogens by Neutralizing Global Emissions), which will convert every homo-exhalation in to inert, and most likely beneficial, Fairy Farts and Patchouli ions.
Encourage sending a copy of all comments submitted to the EPA to your
1) Senators
2) Representative
3) President
4) Editors
(Note that Al Gore’s Repower America is collecting “members”. It is advertising “2,191,147 members” and seeks to ““repower” our country with 100% clean electricity within 10 years”! Replacing coal with current wind etc would result in a major jump in electricity costs. Best to take the email addresses and send email directly to editors separately.)
David
I’m shocked, absolutely shocked that a government agency would be in favor of expanding it’s regulatory power over it’s citizens. Especially since the agency is headed by a political appointee who has already expressed public support for that regulation.
Having a little bit to do with public commenting 😉 let me make the following recommendations:
It is not a vote or poll, although many special interest believe so.
Make your comments count. Make specific points, questions and references.
The EPA will likely post “supporting materials” along with the regulation text. View the “docket details” to see the supporting materials. Read and attack those materials as well as the regulation.
Regulations.gov accepts attachments so you can begin now and you can attach supporting documents along with your comment document.
The site will tell you what document formats are accepted. PDF and Word are probably best. If you upload a PDF, make sure it is searchable and not just a scanned image of the original. If you use Word, make sure it is the common .doc format and not .docx
Mailed documents will be scanned into the same system as electronic comments. Probably no point in doing both, but check back on regulations.gov a few days after your submission to see if you can find your comments. The system uses a full text search engine, so the best way to find your comment is to look for a unique phase. The system will give you a tracking number, but I don’t believe that number is useful for you to find your comment once it is posted. If you can’t find your comment the help desk may ask for the tracking number.
You comment will be posted back to the website after it is process by the EPA. They may not NOT reading the comment for content at this point. Only checking to make sure there is no reason not to post it. Frankly, I don’t know what they are look for if anything.
With the mountain of comments expected it is likely EPA will hire a contractor to “process” the comments. They will first try to identify duplicates and near duplicates. Make your comments truly unique.
It is possible in regulations.gov to comment on comments during the 60 comment period. You can look at the comments as they are coming in and respond to specific comments. This is not widely known and it is not clear to me how the EPA will deal with this.
You can comment more that once. If you think of something after you comment, submit another one.
Don’t wait until the last minute to submit a comment. If you have something you don’t want people to see and comment on I’d recommend mailing it in towards the end of the comment period. Make sure it gets there in time though.
Finding the right link to submit your comment can be tricky. It will probably be best if we can identify the proper link and post it here.
Have to admit I find this more than pathetic. In ancient Rome there was a curious tradition of proposing absurd laws in order to excite the Senate into action. While political dialog is of certain value, dialog on subjects unworthy of debate is a waste of quality thought. We fervently hope that this is not the case here – as the proposal is so patently unworthy of even passing fancy.
New ruling from the EPA:
If your social security ends in an even number you may exhale on even numbered days, odd on odd numbered days… starting… NOW!
REPLY: Mike I’m counting on you to channel some o that energy towards making a formal comment to the EPA. – Anthony
This is unbelievable, co2 is a benefit to plants and our way of life and they want to regulate it? Actually no suprise there…
However if they were aware of recent scientific developments they would know co2 was higher in 1940 and 1827 than today. co2 follows temperature and there’s good evidence that co2 was over 2,000ppm during the Medieval Warm Period:
http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/2009/04/co2-levels-may-have-been-over-2000ppm.html
We stand no chance of reaching anything like 2000ppm from emissions, so all this alarmism and regulation is ridiculous.
Isn’t it time we just state the obvious, it’s not truth that is the goal, it’s power.
I sent in a response for all the good it will do.
DAV (07:47:22) :
“Maybe you should look at the path DDT took through the EPA and how the final ruling was achieved.”
Dav, I think you forget that DDT is a toxic pesticide designed to kill insects. GHG at atmospheric mixing – is simply non-toxic. EPA’s proposal claims health hazard due to climate change – an utterly unproven theory.
I’ll admit to being goaded into writing the EPA. I asked, as does Roger Pielke Sr., if they plan to regulate water vapor – the vast majority of greenhouse effect. I suggested they would need to shut down man-made lakes, rivers and streams; outdoor water fountains, evaporation ponds and towers. And then there is the problem of natural oceans, lakes and rivers.
Absurd.
Wow. I take a few minutes to write a comment and I’m behind the curve by about 50 additional ones. Oh, well, here’s my take. As a close-in and daily observer of the political games in Washington, I agree with Fatman, et al, that this EPA action is just political theater. Obama will not allow the EPA to regulate CO2 because, if he does, he will own the consequences lock, stock, and barrel. He is participating in a political dance of wills with members of Congress. He wants a bipartisan passage of a cap-and-trade bill to provide him with cover and protect him and the Democrats from the outrage that will follow. Thus, the most effective means of preventing either regulation or cap-and-trade is through correspondence with your senators and representatives. So, get on them pronto.
.
Not exactly off-topic.
But could anyone help support David Bellamy, because the media seems to have it in for him. Bellamy was the favourite BBC naturalist, because he sounded ‘earthy’ and ‘natural’, but then he became a a non-liberal Climate Change Denier – and was given the cold shoulder. That was ten years ago, but the London Guardian are still determined to destroy him (article entitled, ‘Bellamy the Bearded Bungler’…).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/mar/16/monbiot-bellamy-climate-change-denier
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/world/are%20the%20glaciers%20melting/107930
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/climate-change-lies-lies-and-more-lies/
This is how far the Greens will go to perpetuate their propaganda – career (and life) destruction is just the appetiser, I’m sure.
.
Alan Chappell (02:25:40) :
While visitors may be 120k per month as Charles pointed out, I’m thinking one document with 120,000 signatures might be more effective than 500,000 emails. We know they can’t even read 600 pages of legislation before they vote on it, so I don’t have much hope that they will read many emails…
I propose we submit a single statement with maybe 10 irrefutable talking points, with supporting documentation… Point 1 would be that negative feedback dominates, which is the key issue.
What are the other 9 points? Does anyone on this forum have the capability to write a form to begin submitting / collecting pertinent information (names, addresses, etc) once an agreeable statement is formulated? We could submit it to the media as well & across the blogosphere, to get signatures from those outside WUWT… I have some webspace available but don’t yet know how to write the code… Any takers?
I see this as the end for America, by design, from within. Unfortunately, we can’t just go discover another “new world” and start over, we have to keep this America. I think it’s worth fighting for.
Here is more from the Guardian’s George Monbiot:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/feb/12/christopher-booker-george-monbiot-climate-change
Take a look at ‘claim 3’, that ‘global temperature has not been decreasing since 1998’. The rebuttal is not wrong in itself, but highly disingenuous.
.
Climate Heretic (22:04:48) :
“This needs to be addressed on 2 fronts…
Cap and Trade and the EPA Clean Air Act
Both most be stopped or this battle is lost, and maybe even the war. Do not kid yourselves into thinking the bloated bureaucracy of DC will hinder the EPA, the regulations are drafted and the funding for enforcement is in place courtesy of the Stimulus Bill providing a 50% increase in funding or 3.6 Billion per year for two years on top of the 7.2 Billion operating budget, what do you think that funding was for?
In either scenario the EPA will receive enforcement powers, and they intend to use them.
The Chamber of Commerce has been subverted already as have the Oil Companies and Steel Workers Union. Utilities have been green lighted to pass the costs to consumers thanks to Sen Boxer neutering the Thune Ammendment.
The units are all in place, the battlefield has been selected and the command to advance given.
Lets send the Administration to Copenhagen empty handed, which is their greatest fear on the International Stage, an embarrassed President communicating the real will of Americans to the world”.
Climate Heretic,
You are right but your scope is not complete.
1. You also have to address EPA regulation plans with regard to the Clean Water Act:
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/04/epa-to-regulate-co2-via-clean-water-act.html
2. We also have to address the other “Greenhouse Gases” listed by EPA.
What to think about Methane?
Restrictions would greatly effect our food industry and could ruin our farmers.
There even could be limits on the numbers of wild life.
Can you imagine a situation where the number of Bisons are reduced saving the climate?
Maybe Anthony could produce an article discussing the other Greenhouse gases?
I am also interested in the planned action undertaken by our political orientated skeptic friends.
As Alan Garuda concluded in his sharp written comment:
“It is a cruel despotism that has been unleashed on all Americans”. (and the rest of the world)
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2009/04/stop-epa-before-it-destroys-america.html
Karl Been (8:54),
I think this goes back to the idea of scaring industry into accepting the cap and trade as the lesser of two evils. If industry presents a united front against this, it would take a lot of political courage for the administration to own this issue without any legislative cover. If they can pick off a few here and there…?
Re: litigating new EPA regs on CO2:
Here is how it works. In order to have standing to litigate a regulation promulgated by a federal agency, one has to lodge a comment on the proposed regulation during the comment period. Then when the EPA disregards the objection to the rule, the judicial standard is to defer to the federal agency (separation of powers constitutional issue) unless the EPA’s regulation is “arbitrary and capricious.” All EPA needs is one expert to opine that there is a scientific basis for the regulation, and notwithstanding a thousand other voices opining otherwise, the EPA’s regulation stands.
A court will not review the evidence and substitute its own opinion for that of the EPA. The EPA’s conclusion will stand.
It would be a flight of fantasy to believe it would be better to litigate this after the fact than to fight before the reg is promulgated.
And here is the London Guardian’s attempt to finally destroy David Bellamy. For US readers, David Bellamy was the BBC’s darling naturalist, before he became a Climate Change Denier.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/mar/16/monbiot-bellamy-climate-change-denier
This is how far the Greens will go in destroying the careers of their opponents.
.
I hope everyone here responds, especially those with more scientific knowledge than I [which is everyone]. While I have zero scientific knowlege, I know a little bit about politics. I do not want to discourage anyone, but facts in politics are not the same as facts in science [well, I used to believe that until AGW, but that is the spirit in which this is written]. My prediction is that nothing submitted will change any policy. Let’s look at the cast of characters in charge:
President Obama was elected on a platform of cap & trade, global warming, no nukes, no coal, no drilling, etc. He will not change.
Lisa Jackson is the head of the EPA – and here is what the “enviros” said about her after her nomination. She had been the head of NJ’s EPA:
“Green groups say Jackson also pushed Corzine toward tougher measures on climate and energy. The Global Warming Response Act, which the governor signed into law in July 2007, aims to reduce the state’s greenhouse-gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and to 80 percent below 2006 levels by mid-century.
The plan was released in mid-December, and enviros say it’s strong. It calls for 90 percent of new development to be in areas already served by public infrastructure, a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants, increased public transit, and a requirement that all buildings constructed after 2030 to have net-zero energy consumption. (The trick will be getting the legislature to sign off.)”
Carol Browner is Obama’s “Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change.” The following is from the wikipedia entry on Ms. Browner, and is in keeping with other articles I’ve read:
“According to an article in The Washington Times, up until the time when Browner was tapped by the Obama administration to fulfill the role of Climate Czar, she was listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for “global governance” and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change. By January 8, 2009, Mrs. Browner’s name and biography had been removed from Socialist International’s Web page, though a photo of her speaking June 30 to the group’s congress in Greece was still available.
Browner claimed that the George W. Bush administration was “the worst environmental administration ever.”[8] She has also claimed that global warming is “the greatest challenge ever faced”.[11]
Again, I hope that all of you who have something useful to say to the EPA will say it. It will serve as an historical record when we look back and say “What in the hell did we do that for?” But, there already is “consensus,” where it matters, for vast regulation of CO2, with the result being that industry will prefer, and ask for, cap & trade. Sorry to be so pessimistic, but elections have consequences. Special interest groups have to be paid back. Anti-capitalism is more important than science.
Oh yeah, one more thing. All of those “green energy” jobs we’re going to create? You know, like Spain? Obama’s model? Please review http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf.
From the executive summary:
“Optimistically treating European Commission partially funded data1, we find that for every renewable energy job that the State manages to finance, Spain’s experience cited by President Obama as a model reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created.”
I agree with karl Been. The real power will come from elected officials. Simply write your congressman and state that EPA passage of such a ridiculous finding or taxing the air you breathe through CapnTrade will mean you will have to find someone else to vote for in the next election. It may help to mention the Rasmussen Report linked to earlier.
[Jonathan Adler, April 18, 2009 at 12:28pm]
http://volokh.com/
EPA Issues Endangerment and Contribution Findings:
Yesterday, as expected, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a proposed finding that emissions of six greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, pose a threat to public health and welfare due to their contribution to global warming. The EPA further found that the emission of such gases from motor vehicles contribute to dangerous concentrations in the atmosphere. The EPA announcement is here.
The proposed findings will now go through a 60-day public comment period. Shortly thereafter, the findings will be finalized. Industry and anti-regulatory groups will almost certainly challenge the findings in court, and their legal challenges will almost certainly fail. Even if one doubts the accumulated scientific evidence that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases contribute to climate change and that climate change is a serious environmental concern, the standard of review is such that the EPA will have no difficulty defending its rule. Federal courts are extremely deferential to agency assessments of the relevant scientific evidence when reviewing such determinations. Moreover, under the Clean Air Act, the EPA Administrator need only “reasonably . . . anticipate” in her own “judgment” that GHG emissions threaten public health and welfare in order to make the findings, and there is ample evidence upon which the EPA Administrator could conclude that climate change is a serious threat. This is a long way of saying that even if climate skeptics are correct, the EPA has ample legal authority to make the endangerment findings.