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
You have to read it to believe it:
“Governments are political bodies. And the IPCC’s function is – and always has been – to provide an appearance of scientific justification for political policies”.
TO PROVIDE AN APPEARANCE OF SCIENTIFIC JUSTIFICATION.
This remarkable statement is not made by a Skeptic but by an IPCC Official.
Other statements are as much revealing:
“There has been no mathematically significant rise in mean global temperature (MGT) since 1995. MGT has not again achieved the peak it had in the El Nino year of 1998 and has been static or gradually falling since 2001. Furthermore, the ‘fingerprint’ of enhanced greenhouse effect is greatest warming at altitude in the tropics, but independent measurements from weather balloons and from satellites both show slight cooling at altitude in the tropics. Meanwhile, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and anthropogenic emissions have continued to rise”.
Let’s send this article to Obama and EPA and we have fixed the Hoax.
Richard S Courtney Says:
April 17th, 2009 at 3:10 am
Of course the next IPCC report has to be delayed.
The IPCC is the InterGOVERNMENTal Panel on Climate Change. Governments are political bodies. And the IPCC’s function is – and always has been – to provide an appearance of scientific justification for political policies.
That appearance becomes progressively more difficult to sustain with each year the globe fails to warm.
The IPCC Reports were originally scheduled for publication at 5-year intervals. But a 5-year period after the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) would have to report cessation of global warming in the period since the AR4. There has been no mathematically significant rise in mean global temperature (MGT) since 1995. MGT has not again achieved the peak it had in the El Nino year of 1998 and has been static or gradually falling since 2001. Furthermore, the ‘fingerprint’ of enhanced greenhouse effect is greatest warming at altitude in the tropics, but independent measurements from weather balloons and from satellites both show slight cooling at altitude in the tropics. Meanwhile, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and anthropogenic emissions have continued to rise.
The warming period from ~1970 to ~2000 was sandwiched between the cooling periods of ~1940 to ~1970 and ~2000 to the present. The changes between these warming and cooling periods coincide with phase reversals of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and, therefore, it seems that the present lack of warming is likely to continue for the next two decades.
The governments served by the IPCC can only hope that global warming resumes prior to the next IPCC report. Failing that, the next IPCC Report needs to be delayed until the political objectives – such as those the governments hope to achieve at Copenhagen in December – are obtained.
Richard
See the article here: http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/15/ipcc-2014-fifth-assessment-irrelevant/#comment-39812
@richard M
Indeed, the understanding of complex systems appears in its infancy. The late Michael Chrichton made that very point; environmentalists don’t understand complexity, and they don’t understand the inherent unpredictability of the future.
What suppose we are left with is a bit of data about the planet which seems to get interpreted from a wirldview that bears some similarity to NeoRomantic, New Age, Pagan notions about “natural balance” and Nature’s cycles and spirit-as-Nature.
All of these notions have some, some validity—-Nature is an awsome force, and for some people the closest thing they can identify to a God or spiritual radiance, but none of that needs any science. Those feelings exist in their own right for some people. It is like asking scientists to prove the existence of Love. It is not their field.
Ron
The article that you link is devastating. It agrees with another article I read by two German physicists. Is it correct though? If so we are being subject to the greatest deception in the history of mankind and we can do nothing about it
“…six key greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)” — From the original page.
Isn’t this a serious turn of events to include all these other chemicals in one subject of GHG emissions? Is this to just obfuscate and deflect attention from what they really want, control over energy use? Or is this the result of they know that the CO2 argument is so seriously debunked that it needs support?
Other than the obvious hoax of the ozone hole caused by CFCs, I have not heard anyone address these added chemicals. So can someone address these other gases that have just mysteriously appeared in the report.
I believe, after quickly reading through their material, they may have set a trap. We have been so focused on CO2 that we may not see the trap.
When Anthony published his statistics about WUWT hits by countries I have noticed that Denmark scored relative high with over 35000 visits.
Obviously it has payed off:
Only 34% of the population believes Global Warming is caused by humans.
(I think the recent winter made a contribution as well)
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/environment/energy_update
The comments provided to the EPA are nice but will not stop a regulatory agency from finalizing the proposed ruling. We need a coordinated, significant legal challenge to the proposed ruling. The EPA findings will not hold up in a court of law.
I just created http://www.stopepaonco2.com
It will take me a few days to get the website up and running.
Ron de Haan (09:48:57) : “Let’s send this article to Obama and EPA and we have fixed the Hoax.”
Ron, Ron, Ron. I hope you were being sarcastic. I have read many of your posts. You appear to be very intelligent and knowledgable about the science. But what we are talking about has very little to do with science. It has everything to do with politics, covered with a thin veneer of psuedo-science. AGW is the greatest camouflage the left has ever had. That is not to say that it started out that way. I will give the benefit of the doubt to those who raised questions in the beginning. But now? No, no time for questions now. This is the greatest opportunity for the left since the Great Depression. Science means nothing to them. Please, keep up the good fight, for it is posts like this one and comments like yours that keep me informed. But please, for your own sake, don’t believe for a minute that a “study” or an “article,” or a series of studies or articles, will ever change anyone’s mind in the current US Administration.
Calling CO2 a pollutant has me wondering if I am in some sort of strange non-rational parallel universe.
Politician’s aren’t stupid. I believe most do not believe in AGW. They believe in getting elected and staying in power. Since the flavour du jour happens to be AGW, they will push AGW agendas. It has nothing to do with science and, as a result, using science to change minds will probably not work. But if there is a grass-roots movement to vote them out of office, they will listen.
Martin Mason (09:53:14) :
“Ron
The article that you link is devastating. It agrees with another article I read by two German physicists. Is it correct though? If so we are being subject to the greatest deception in the history of mankind and we can do nothing about it”
Yes, but we knew this for a long time did we not!
This is about the control over population based on the lunatic perception that human kind is using the resources of five earths.
This is a really sick perception and like the AGW Hoax it is not true.
This is a frontal attack on human kind.
@ur momisugly Keith Thompson MD (04:23:14):
“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.”
I am not an administrative law jock, but I believe that any decision by the EPA can be the subject of an action in Federal District Court (5 USC 701) by an adversely affected party which in this case, is going to be legion. I think the action can be brought anywhere in the US, but the Court system will consolidate the cases in one court room.
Any final decision by a District court may be appealed to Circuit Court of Appeals, which will assign the matter to a three judge panel chosen by lot from the numerous judges in that Circuit. That panels decision may be reheard by the entire court of appeals.
That decision may be appealed to the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS). SCOTUS usually has discretion as to whether they will hear a matter. They generally hear less that 100 of the thousands of matters filled with them every year, but given the enormous potential impact of an EPA ruling, I doubt that they will duck.
I don’t want to discuss standards of proof or review because most of that is like playing soccer with ripe melons. The statute (5 USC 706) empowers the District court to set aside agency actions that are arbitrary and capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or unconstitutional, or which exceed its statutory jurisdiction.
According to the WSJ today:
I would say that each step of the process would take at least a year for the agency work, two years for the district court case, a year in the court of appeals, and a year at SCOTUS — say 5 years overall. So I think we are looking at 10 years at a minimum.
No the courts are not a good place to resolve these questions because they are composed of the wrong people (scientific and mathematical illiterates), having the wrong training and experience (law school and legal practice), and with the wrong incentives (no downside in their mistakes, no upside if they are right) to make a decision. Courts are good at throwing cat burglars and drug dealers in jail and settling disputes over business deals. They are not good at this sort of world wide social reconstruction and they should not begin to try.
Cliff Huston (20:04:59) :
“What, the number one greenhouse gas is left off the list?
REPLY: Water vapor, of course, but its a natural part of the earth’s environment and cycles, so regulating it would be just crazy, oh, wait….”
Sloppy science or pure propaganda?
Courtesy of the federal government:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/contentIncludes/co2_inc.htm
“How can 6 pounds of gasoline create 19 pounds of Carbon dioxide?
It seems impossible that a gallon of gasoline, which weighs about 6.3
pounds, could produce 20 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) when burned.
However, most of the weight of the CO2 doesn’t come from the gasoline
itself, but the oxygen in the air.
When gasoline burns, the carbon and hydrogen separate. The hydrogen
combines with oxygen to form water (H2O), and carbon combines with
oxygen to form carbon dioxide (CO2).
CO2 molecule with one carbon atom (atomic weight 12) and two oxygen
atoms (atomic weight of 16 each)A carbon atom has a weight of 12, and
each oxygen atom has a weight of 16, giving each single molecule of CO2
an atomic weight of 44 (12 from carbon and 32 from oxygen).
Therefore, to calculate the amount of CO2 produced from a gallon of
gasoline, the weight of the carbon in the gasoline is multiplied by
44/12 or 3.7.
Since gasoline is about 87% carbon and 13% hydrogen by weight, the
carbon in a gallon of gasoline weighs 5.5 pounds (6.3 lbs. x .87).
We can then multiply the weight of the carbon (5.5 pounds) by 3.7, which
equals 20 pounds of CO2! ”
I have so many problems with this piece of government “work” that I hardly know where to begin. But let’s start with the first sentence and the word “create”, which may be appropriate in a discussion of theology, but has no business being used in an explanation of any phenomenon based on physics or chemistry. Then there is the use of (very) loose averaging, which apparently led to the CO2 gaining a pound between the first and second sentence. Then there is the assumption of a pure C-H mixture (not possible), and the further assumption of only two by-products forming, which is total fiction. And why is there an exclamation point at the end of the last sentence if this isn’t propaganda? When is the last time anyone read an abstract or research paper that used exclamation points? Amazing.
I will forget all of that for the moment and point out a few things that were, no doubt, excluded from this piece intentionally.
Using exactly the same proportions and math procedures, this hypothetical gallon of gasoline also released 7.4 lbs. of new H20 into the atmosphere. Since water vapor is considered the more powerful GHG of these two, does that mean I can obtain a government grant to study the effects of anthropogenic water vapor, or has it already been done? If anthropogenic CO2 is now considered a pollutant, shouldn’t we assign the same status to anthropogenic water vapor? What about H2O sequestration technologies? I can almost smell the research grants pouring in. This might be a good subject for the DHMO website to look into.
All joking aside, why do I get the feeling that the true reason for all of the math in this piece is to obfuscate a basic fact? Regardless of the weight of the outputs, the net effect is the addition to the atmosphere of 6.3 lbs. of mass, and the reduction of the mass of the earth’s crust by exactly the same amount. So the total heat capacity of the atmosphere was increased, and an additional one degree of freedom was added (through molecular bonding) to ~27 lbs of O2, at the same time the total heat capacity of the of the earth’s crust was reduced . . Seems like they just might cancel each other out. And what about the ~107 lbs. of nitrogen that also cycled through that engine with every gallon of gas?
Which brings up another vaguely nagging question. How long does H2O remain in the atmosphere before molecular dissociation versus CO2? I mean, left to it’s own devices in the atmosphere, the CO2 will eventually be broken back down, via the carbon cycle, into C and O2. The atmospheric free oxygen will be returned from whence it came, which seems like a good thing, if you like breathing. But what about the new water? Viewed from this perspective, carbon sequestration starts to sound like an attempt at suicide, doesn’t it?
I think it’s about time to put this endless debate about CO2 to rest, once and for all. I have been saying for years now that the atmosphere cannot be treated as if it were a closed system. In the example in the above article, the total mass of the earth was not changed by even 1 mcg, we simply changed the phase state of molecules which came from underground, at least in this example. However, we did, in a very short period of time relative to natural processes, release large amounts of stored chemical energy from beneath the surface by converting it to thermal energy above the surface, releasing it to space, and at the same time, reduced the total heat capacity of the earth’s crust. Since the ability of gasses to store thermal energy relative to solids and liquids is virtually null, the only logical outcome is also null, or a cooling effect.
This is sleight-of-hand posing as science.
I like being a “tree hugger”. I have succesfully turned 10 acres of pasture into forest on my own. Now, how can we get CO2 concentrations up to around 800 PPM so my trees will grow faster?
It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it.
I would say that each step of the process would take at least a year for the agency work, two years for the district court case, a year in the court of appeals, and a year at SCOTUS — say 5 years overall. So I think we are looking at 10 years at a minimum.
And, in the meantime, economic progress grinds to a halt because nobody knows what the final regulations will be. and aren’t willing to expand or build not knowing.
Someone up thread mentioned buildings with no net energy usage by 2030. I suppose that will be possible, because there surely won’t be many being built, and the ones that are built will be REALLY expensive.
“Someone up thread mentioned buildings with no net energy usage by 2030. I suppose that will be possible, because there surely won’t be many being built, and the ones that are built will be REALLY expensive.”
I think those energy free buildings will get here much quicker. Of course they will be filled by squatters and they won’t be generating any rents.
ralph ellis
It’s actually the Manchester Guardian. Or Grauniad.
There appears to be a level of misunderstanding here about the role of the EPA. They are a government department that is staffed at the upper levels by the current administration. In the previous eight years, for right or wrong the past administration was able to steer the interpretation of the law. Now, with the changing of the guard, there is a new set of apparatchiks pulling the levers of power.
In the CO2 = pollution the way we got to this point is: 1) In the 1970’s the environmental movement convinced Congress to write laws protecting Clean Air. 2) That law authorizes the EPA to regulate pollutants emitted into the air. Fast forward to the new millennium…in order to use the existing laws a few clever lawyers with the cooperation of some scientists convinced the courts that because CO2 = pollution it is now appropriate that the EPA has the right to regulate its emission into the air using the existing laws.
That some commenters (eg Dane skold (09:17:36), DAV (07:47:22)) express futility of changing the EPA reflects a world-view realizing that the fix is already in. This is precisely the reason why the real focus should be to change the source Clear Air laws. If the law clearly and unequivocally states that CO2 is NOT a pollutant, then no matter who runs the EPA or whoever sits on the Supreme Court there is no further basis for discussion – game over.
Look, by all means write to the EPA on these proposed regulations, but if you really want to address the root cause of the problem – its the Clean Air act that needs rewriting, so when you contact your Senators and Representatives tell them that you want the law modernized for the 21 century to amongst other things, to clearly state that CO2 is not a pollutant.
Walter Cronanty (10:11:59) :
“Ron de Haan (09:48:57) : “Let’s send this article to Obama and EPA and we have fixed the Hoax.”
Ron, Ron, Ron. I hope you were being sarcastic. I have read many of your posts. You appear to be very intelligent and knowledgable about the science. But what we are talking about has very little to do with science. It has everything to do with politics, covered with a thin veneer of psuedo-science. AGW is the greatest camouflage the left has ever had. That is not to say that it started out that way. I will give the benefit of the doubt to those who raised questions in the beginning. But now? No, no time for questions now. This is the greatest opportunity for the left since the Great Depression. Science means nothing to them. Please, keep up the good fight, for it is posts like this one and comments like yours that keep me informed. But please, for your own sake, don’t believe for a minute that a “study” or an “article,” or a series of studies or articles, will ever change anyone’s mind in the current US Administration.”
Walter,
I you are correct, it was sarcastic. Read the article about the IPCC I have posted.
I have plugged the http://green-agenda.com and the Agenda 21 http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/index.htm on many occasions.
This is political and it is about control over human kind.
There are people who believe humanity is in need of five earths to generate the resources to maintain a global industrialized society compared to the USA and Europe. Those people are wrong. This is as much a hoax as the AGW Fraud.
I am also convinced that the current crises is used to create momentum for the coup that is currently underway.
As the last G20 meeting has failed, the USA started the money presses (1400 billion dollars to print) and the Chinese stopped buying US debt we can expect a collapse of the International Monetary System by the end of this summer.
People will have a lot on their minds when this happens and the political mafia in this Administration will take advantage of the havoc they have created.
Time to fight back.
Use your Constitution!
Save the Republic before it is too late:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/04/saving_the_republic.html
I generated a blog entry to visually demonstrate what the CO2 fuss is about. Since it requires use of images I am unable to recreate it here as a response.
The title of the page is:
EPA…. A Step Toward Carbon Caps & Tax
The graphics are about pre-industrial and current CO2 levels.
The entry can be found here..
http://penoflight.com/climatebuzz/?p=503
Emerging Protests:
http://greenhellblog.wordpress.com/2009/04/17/epa-seeks-public-comment-on-greenhouse-gases/
I respectfully disagree. I believe that the courts are the ONLY place where we can achieve corrective action and adequately address the merits of either side of the issue.
The whole ploy here is just this:
.
— They —the NWO/AGW CONTROL FREAKS— KNOW that the Earth is getting cooler.
.
— They KNOW that sun spot frequency has =EVERYTHING= to do with planetary atmospheric thermal dynamics.
.
— They KNOW that WE KNOW, but THEY DON’T CARE.
.
— The game afoot is just this: EVEN IN THE FACE of all the evidence, they will make the law and enforce it.
But EVEN THOUGH the temperature is falling and will continue to do so naturally, THEY will claim success even though what was forced upon us HAD ZERO EFFECT.
They will VOCIFEROUSLY proclaim success and demand EVEN MORE restrictions.
It is time to stand up to those idiots. Sooner or later we —all of us— are going to have to stand up to those jerks, come what may.
For those of you clinging to the faint hope that politicians can be enlightened to the truth of the state of the global climate, I’d like to recommend this NPR interview with Rep. Henry Waxman, who is unfortunately a powerful figure in the present Congress. http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/200904/20090413_waxman.html
The following question and answer is probably the money quote, but all of it is depressingly enlightening about the mindset we’re dealing with.
But there is this debate, however you break it down, about whether or not there really is global warming, and there are people who scoff at Al Gore and others who make that case, and you all the time, for making that case. Talk to me about where we are in that debate on the science, because there is this tension around this.
Waxman: Well, there have been scientists brought together to see if they could figure out the science and make it clear whether this is a danger or not, whether it’s a danger that’s a great one or one that we can postpone for a while, and the overwhelming consensus of all the leading scientists that have looked at this issue is there is a warming of the planet, it’s manmade, caused by our burning of carbon fuels, and it’s happening faster than anybody ever thought it would happen.
We’re seeing the reality of a lot of the North Pole starting to evaporate, and we could get to a tipping point. Because if it evaporates to a certain point – they have lanes now where ships can go that couldn’t ever sail through before. And if it gets to a point where it evaporates too much, there’s a lot of tundra that’s being held down by that ice cap.
If that gets released we’ll have more carbon emissions and methane gas in our atmosphere than we have now. We see a lot of destruction happening because of global warming, climate change problems, so we’ve got enough warning signals and enough of a scientific consensus to take this seriously.
Drew (12:29:18) : “I respectfully disagree. I believe that the courts are the ONLY place where we can achieve corrective action and adequately address the merits of either side of the issue.”
Because?
I like this analysis of the Greenhouse effect.
Quote:
If glass lets visible wavelengths of sunlight in but doesn’t let invisible long-wavelengths (infrared) out, thus raising the temperature inside, then glass thermometers have been misleading us for centuries. According to the greenhouse theory, glass thermometers necessarily register an extra “greenhouse effect,” and not the true temperature.
End quote
Any flaws in this analysis?
http://tech-know.eu/uploads/ACCInput.pdf
.