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 see a number of tasks presented to those of us who are willing. First and foremost is to compose an intelligent scientifically rigorous response to the EPA with copies to our Senators and Representative, and to editors of newspapers and other media. This, in itself is no small task.
If we are to do this knowledgably, we probably should read the “Pre-publication copy of the Administrator’s Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings…” (133 pp), the “Technical Support Document for the Proposed Findings (171 pp), “Massachusetts v. EPA” Supreme Court Case, Transcript of Oral Arguments 11/29/06 (70 pp) and the Opinion of Court 4/2/07 (66 pp). Perhaps chinks in the marxist-armor might be found in the latter two.
Second, is to address the Clean Air Act immediately and to ask for (demand) its revision.
I have no doubt that Obama was elected President for this governmental-authoritarian purpose as well as for the purpose of bankrupting western/developed world affluence. He is not a natural born citizen as required by our Consitution; his father was a British Empire/then Kenyan Citizen and his father was a marxist Muslim. His mother also was a marxist. From my research, global financial institutions bankrolled him from the beginning for their own purposes, which he has fulfilled by gifting them everything they (CEOs/top management) want and imposing no new regulations, the lack of which got us into this financial mess in the first place.
Furthermore, corruption and fraud got Obama nominated and elected, not a majority of honest American voters.
I believe this will be the fight of our lives. One of my requests is for us not to call those in power, those attempting to promulgate these regulation “liberals”. They have no liberal ideals — only authoritarian, progressive-marxists. This effort will take a concerted partnership by conservatives and liberals — there is no one else with the best interest of America at heart. It is very difficult for conservatives not to use the term “liberal” as an epithet for everything they dislike, but it is time to bury the hatchet and recognize your allies. Both classical and modern liberals believe fervently in capitalism — that also provides a safety net. It is about the latter liberals and conservatives most disagree. Liberalism does not support the welfare state and it does not support government boondoggles like cap-and-trade or declaring essential chemicals for life pollutants.
I begin my reading.
Car stickers.
A presentation we can agree on, that we can take around to talk to groups of people about “real climate science”. Assemble an “Idiot’s Guide to Climate Science” IN PICTURES since people are being conned because they don’t know or don’t connect about CO2 feeding plants – etc. A picture is worth 1000 words.
Get behind Monckton’s letter: but if so, then also, we need to list here all the false criticisms AGW has massed against Monckton, so we can have the answers to the AGW slanders at hand.
Pray. Think positive. Reach for your highest. Be proud to stand up and be counted.
Ask with compassion why all the scientists and science teachers who know the truth about CO2 and scientific method, are not standing up.
Fat Man (14:31:55) :
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?
Because we’re not going to win a scientific debate outside of the courtroom since they determine who wins. They control the administrative and legislative side of the house and, as mentioned many times even on this post, this is all politics – not science. If we’re going to force science to form the basis for the regulations, then the court of law is perhaps the only place where we can get a fair shot.
Ron de Haan (12:09:24) : “I you are correct, it was sarcastic. ”
Sorry for doubting you, Ron.
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.”
As an attorney who has been practicing for over 25 years, taught as an adjunct at a law school, and practiced before all levels of federal and state courts – I disagree. With the burden one would have to overcome for a court to overrule the rule making abilities of a regulatory body [arbitrary and capricious] and the absolute inundation of poor science on this subject, the Sup. Ct. could be sitting in the middle of a blizzard in August in Washington DC, and I would be doubtful of a favorable outcome. Unfortunately, I believe that only good science, such as demonstrated here, together with somehow getting the MSM’s attention, together with political action will change this country’s current course. Someone said on another post here that companies will make the EPA promulgate draconian anti-CO2 rules, and that, coupled with the cost and no catastrophic AGW will finally wake up the US electorate. If that is the only way, we’re in for a long, expensive ride.
Ralph Ellis says:
First of all, it is well-recognized that while there is a rough analogy between actual greenhouses and the atmospheric greenhouse effect, the analogy does not extend to the actual mechanism for the trapping of the heat: i.e., in an actual greenhouse, most of the heat trapping is due to trapping of the air itself and thus preventing convection whereas the atmospheric greenhouse effect is due to the trapping of radiation. See “Real Greenhouses” here for further discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
Second of all, in regards to the thermometer: To the extent that glass does allow through visible radiation but does not allow out infrared radiation, this should not have an effect on a correctly-taken temperature reading. Basically, the main mechanism by which a thermometer comes into equilibrium with its surroundings is by conduction of heat. If you put a thermometer in direct sunlight then indeed the solar radiation can play a role in skewing the resulting reading. This is just a reason, however, why a thermometer should not be placed in direct sunlight: the reading obtained in such a case does not accurately represent the actual temperature of the air, a fact that I think is fairly well-known.
There is almost nothing right in that analysis.
Canadian Government has taken similar action .
http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=714D9AAE-1&news=29FDD9F6-489A-4C5C-9115-193686D1C2B5
ralph ellis (14:47:11) :
I like this analysis of the Greenhouse effect.
You shouldn’t, it is rather moronic, or at least, their thermometer example is moronic. First, thermometers don’t actually measure temperature. They typically measure the expansion of a liquid, usually either mercury (for medical) or alcohol (for the one on your porch), that results from heating. Basically, the output of this type of thermometer is a volume measurement. That measurement is converted to temperature through a calibration. So, even if there is some greenhouse effect with the thermometer, it is accounted for in the calibration.
Mark
Notice that carbon dioxide is not included as part of the air quality index.
http://www.ec.gc.ca/cas-aqhi/default.asp?Lang=En&n=065BE995-1#calculated
Dead right @Walter.
As an attorney, I’ve contended with FDA in the lair of the dragon on a citizen’s petition for rule making.
One of the FDA’s “experts” on the issue at the meeting spouted a belief that had been demonstratively proven false repeatedly. He was not current on the literature. It was a challenge not to laugh at his ignorance, but that one doesn’t laugh out loud at the witness, judge, and jury rolled into one.
At the public hearing on the petition, the FDA’s chair admonished one of the FDA’s chosen panel members that his comments were on the record and would be published. The comment? If the petition were granted, it would moot his ongoing research — funded by the NIH. (One of his published gems is that smoking prevents arthritis.)
Outcome? FDA conceded that the substance had a demonstrably beneficial effect, but denied the petition on the grounds that it lacked adequate scientific support.
Litigating an administrative regulation is not civil litigation where the preponderance of evidence prevails. If there is any evidence supporting the regulation, the courts will not override the executive branch regulation. In other words, if one scientific source supports the reg despite nine refuting it, the regulation stands. Since there are published papers concluding that AGW exists, regulations built on such papers meet the APA standard.
It is not enough alone to be correct on the merits.
It is a political issue, and must be defeated at that level if at all.
It’s going to be a tough 3 and 3/4 years.
My concern with the courts is that they are filled with lawyers and judges. Neither are particularly well versed with science. As Fat Man (10:31:38) commented above, courts are ideal for deciding whether a criminal goes to jail or settling business disputes, but their experience with science is limited. Besides, the trouble with the legal system and the reason that environmentalists have this country tied up in knots is that it only takes one environmentalist to file a law-suit. Inevitably the case gets taken to some favorable venue – for example the Ninth Court of Appeals in San Francisco, to seek a favorable judgment.
Nothing illustrates how our environmental laws are being abused more than this CO2 = pollution. Again, the way to solve this is to demand our legislators to definitively rewrite the law.
Richard111 (01:07:12) :
It will require a police force larger than the military to police this.
How will they decide who is guilty of which emissions by how much?
Welcome to Brave New Worlds.
You might want to reference this document http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/140410p.pdf
It supercedes a directive from the Clinton era that dealt with overseas deployments of civilian contractors and unlike this one made no mention of ” restoration of order
Richard111 (01:07:12) :
It will require a police force larger than the military to police this.
How will they decide who is guilty of which emissions by how much?
Welcome to Brave New Worlds.
You might want to reference this document, http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/140410p.pdf
It supercedes a directive from the Clinton years that dealt with overseas deployments of civilian contractors and unlike this one made no mention of “restoration of order” or “stability operations” which seem to be key features of the new one. Check the date of issuance as well, they’ve obviously been giving this some thought for quite a while. Given Obama’s calls for a civilian defense force to rival our military during the campaign and the recent DHS document on “rightwing extremists” i e anyone who disagrees with the Big O, it’s becoming very apparent that they plan to brook no insubordination from we lowly peons out here in flyover land.
Walter Cronanty (16:07:52) :
‘As an attorney who has been practicing for over 25 years, taught as an adjunct at a law school, and practiced before all levels of federal and state courts – I disagree.’
How would the Data Quality Act play into EPA ruling and have they violated the Act?
Martin38 (10:39:30) :
‘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?’
Do you have any endanger plant life on your tree farm? Wouldn’t any attempt to regulate CO2 be counter intuitive of the endanger species act?
“old construction worker (17:20:27) :
Do you have any endanger plant life on your tree farm? Wouldn’t any attempt to regulate CO2 be counter intuitive of the endanger species act?”
OCW,
That is simply brilliant! Does anyone have a list of endangered plants?? I’ll start planting right away.
Mike Bryant
Another thing that is obvious, but virtually unmentioned, is that the animal part of the biosphere is almost completely dependent upon the plant part of the biosphere. What’s good for the plants is good for the animals. Rising CO2, up to a limit is good for everything. Who could ask for anything more?
===========================================
Normal CO2 Levels. The effects of an increased level of CO2 on an adult person in good health can be summarized as follows:
Normal outside levels: 350 – 600 ppmv.
Acceptable levels: up to 600 ppmv.
Stiffness and odors: 600 – 1000 ppmv.
Data provided by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA):
Standards: 1000 ppmv.
Stupor: 1000 – 2500 ppm.
Maximum allowed concentration in an 8 hour working period: 5,000 ppmv.
Extreme and Dangerous CO2 Levels:
Nausea and increase of the cardiac and respiratory frequencies (from oxygen deficiency): 30,000 ppmv.
The above plus headaches and sight impairment: 50,000 ppmv.
Unconsciousness and death: 100,000 ppmv (OSHA).
Carbon dioxide is an essential gas for living beings, from bacteria to mammals, including plants. The declaration on CO2 as a toxic pollutant dangerous for life is plainly pseudoscience similar to dogmatism. EPA declared to Media that they reached that conclusion after a “meticulous” research by scientists. I would like who those scientists are, because they are demonstrating their illiteracy on biological issues.
matt v. (16:47:27) :
Notice that carbon dioxide is not included as part of the air quality index.
http://www.ec.gc.ca/cas-aqhi/default.asp?Lang=En&n=065BE995-1#calculated”
matt,
Neither is methane,
Let’s keep it that way.
This value: Nausea and increase of the cardiac and respiratory frequencies (from oxygen deficiency): 30,000 ppmV, would correspond to 2.65% of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For comparison, current percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is only 0.034%. Physiologically, the effect of nausea and increase of the cardiac and respiratory frequencies are due to deficiency of oxygen in blood, not to any specific “toxic” effect of carbon dioxide. The same criterion applies to concentrations of 50000 ppmV and 100000 ppmV.
kim (17:52:12) :
Another thing that is obvious, but virtually unmentioned, is that the animal part of the biosphere is almost completely dependent upon the plant part of the biosphere. What’s good for the plants is good for the animals. Rising CO2, up to a limit is good for everything. Who could ask for anything more?
===========================================
Kim,
You are 100% correct.
That is why it is utter madness to tax cattle stocks for methane emissions.
There is also evidence that our great leaders don’t understand their own policies.
Cattle stocks maintain a closed CO2 system.
They intend to achieve the same with bio fuels.
Bio fuels are supported with Government grants.
Farmers now are lited for regulation and taxation.
This is insane.
The most insane idea of all is to feed the cattle with fish to reduce methane.
This is the fastest way to empty the oceans permanently and process any fish caught by the nets.
I have made this remark not for the first time: Green is not green, it is RED.
And with red I mean the red used in the flag of the fallen USSR Empire.
Also think about the palm oil plantations destroying tropical forests (Borneo) and the mad bio fuel plan that generates havoc in our food markets.
Green is Red and Red kills people and destroys eco-systems.
Ron de Haan (19:07:02) :
matt v. (16:47:27) :
Notice that carbon dioxide is not included as part of the air quality index.
http://www.ec.gc.ca/cas-aqhi/default.asp?Lang=En&n=065BE995-1#calculated”
matt,
Neither is methane. Let’s keep it that way.
Because methane is an unavoidable byproduct of biological processes, the same as carbon dioxide. It seems obvious that the objective of EPA’s declaration is not related to environmental concerns.
Drew (16:06:26): “If we’re going to force science to form the basis for the regulations, then the court of law is perhaps the only place where we can get a fair shot.”
Sorry, Drew. More than a century ago the great humorist Pete Finley Dunne wrote: “no matter whether th’ constitution follows th’ flag or not, th’ supreme coort follows th’ iliction returns.” “Mr. Dooley’s Opinions” p. 26 (1901).
The courts are political institutions and they will reach political conclusions. The only good news is that they work slowly. Slowly enough that the fever of the current hour will have time to break, and the failure of the predictions of doom will have time to become laughable. That is the best you can hope for.
Walter Cronanty (16:07:52) :
Ron de Haan (12:09:24) : “I you are correct, it was sarcastic. ”
Sorry for doubting you, Ron.
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.”
Walter,
With your experience as a lawyer, especially experienced at all levels of State and Federal Law you are the best judge to determine which steps to take.
In the mean time I am still figuring out with which part of my posting you don’t agree.
In my opinion going to court is all about using the constitution and your civil rights to fight your case in court?
I personally think that the scientific arguments from EPA are very weak.
I also think that we have the best science, the expertise and very motivated people who already are organized and will fight back at any level, even in court if necessary.
As long as the judges are not biased in which case we are dealing with fowl play.
“Neither is methane,
Let’s keep it that way.”
Secondhand Methane Fact Sheet
Secondhand Methane, also know as environmental colon exhaust(ECE), is a mixture of the methane given off by the rear end of a cow, person or other mammal and anything else that might escape at the same time (see breakdown in graph 3 below). It is involuntarily inhaled by nonemitters, lingers in the air for what seems like hours after it has been expelled and can cause or exacerbate a wide range of adverse health effects, including cancer, respiratory infections, asthma and nausea.
Walter Cronanty wrote:
“With the burden one would have to overcome for a court to overrule the rule making abilities of a regulatory body [arbitrary and capricious] and the absolute inundation of poor science on this subject, the Sup. Ct. could be sitting in the middle of a blizzard in August in Washington DC, and I would be doubtful of a favorable outcome.”
I believe this is a fair assessment.
There is a better opportunity to do something now, rather than waiting for things to get where you don’t want them and then challenging in court.
ralph ellis (09:21:19) :
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”.
And this is how David Bellamy and David Archibald destroy the climate greenies:
http://www.davidarchibald.info/
also see: http://www.davidarchibald.info/papers/synopsis.pdf