Excerpts from Reuters story: EPA C02 endangerment finding to White House
By Tom Doggett
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has sent its final proposal on whether carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions pose a danger to human health and welfare to the White House for review, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told Reuters on Monday.
The EPA’s final finding, if it follows the agency’s earlier assessment and is approved by the Office of Management and Budget, would allow the EPA to issue rules later to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, even if Congress fails to pass legislation to cut U.S. emissions of the heat-trapping gases that contribute to global warming.
…
She said the OMB has up to 90 days to review the proposal, but the EPA would like a quicker timetable.
“We’ve briefed them a couple of times. So we’re hoping for an expedited review,” Jackson said.
Along with its final endangerment finding, the EPA also sent to OMB the agency’s final finding on whether cars and trucks “cause or contribute to that pollution,” Jackson said.
…
She said the EPA received more than 300,000 comments on its initial proposed public health endangerment and vehicle pollution findings that were issued last April.
Complete story here
Stephen Skinner (14:20:38) :
C02 simply replaces oxygen. The trouble with the EPA is that it has no ventilation in it’s sealed-off mindset, and therefore emits oxygen-deprived findings.
The car companies are all falling over each other to rush from exisiting highly regulated and advanced technologies into something new which will allow them an easier, subsidised life and pass the big issues on to some other industry.
The US companies are probably more keen for that to happen than the Asian and European companies since they are further behind. That said with Ford seemingly doing quite well (having already sold off some potentially medium term competitive businesses to Asia in the shape of India and China) maybe things were not as bad as the bailout money suggested. Even GM seem now to have reversed their decision to sell off european operations.
Of course one can only speculate as to how much can be achieved in so little time, albeit with so much taxpayer funding but the apparent ‘turnaround’ seems uite impressive after decade of struggle despite being in the middle of a recession.
So why is that then? Just what are the main influences that have changed the balance? With so much scrutiny being performed that question should not take long to answer.
It should be fun to watch the EPA explaining why is feels the need to tax cars and trucks and power stations but not other forms of industry like tomato growers. How about a super tax on soft drink manufacturers? Two hits for the price of one – cut gasses and obesity in a single strike.
Good to see above that Newsweek have worked out how to add two and two and get a logical result.
Remember, if the ‘green’ tide is going to create so many new jobs related to so much less energy consumption, energy is about to become too expensine to use.
Henry chance (14:13:30) :
“EPA finding says we have too many Liberals. We also have too many wind generators. They consume millions of tones of Carbon in being manufactured.”
And re-manufactured, including the massive concrete bases, every 20 to 25 years – or maybe less.
The only dangerous CO2 is the one emitted by the corrupted and scientifically challenged politicians and also that of their science advisers. That’s the type of CO2 that should be eliminated.
Stephen Skinner (14:20:38) :
Exactly… they will now start adding warnings to pops, beer, bubbly wine, carbonated water, etc… if they touch one bubble of my beer… it’s Revolution!
OSHA’s Time Weighted Average Exposure Limit is 5,000 ppm. The Short Term Exposure Limit is 30,000 ppm.
If the EPA sets the atmospheric limit at 270 or 350 or even 540 ppm… A lot of work environments will be thrown out of compliance.
Roy Spencer said it best, “It has been said that regulating carbon dioxide emissions will make the United States the cleanest Third World country on Earth. And whoever controls carbon dioxide emissions will control the world.”
According to the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) of CO2, the hazardous limit is at 5000 ppm. How many years would it take according to their models to reach that concentration, if we are in fact responsible for the 1-2% of all CO2 in the atmosphere?
http://encyclopedia.airliquide.com/encyclopedia.asp?GasID=26
Steven,
Please don”t look for any sort of logic or science coming out of the EPA. This is a political entity, the reason of who’s existence is simply the gathering of political power for the benefit of the progressive movement. Period!
To be sure, there have been conscientious people working in that agency, and they have achieved positive things for the citizens of our country. The EPA has helped make our air cleaner and our water purer.
But when the environmental movement was co-opted by the progressive movement the EPA began to become a mere pretense who’s stated goal was the protection of the environment, but who’s every action was aimed at the destruction of our free enterprise economy. There is no other plausible explanation for their record of activities. None!
Richard deSousa (13:39:34) :
Who the hell is running the country? Our elected members of Congress, Senate and the president or a bunch of bureaucrats??
The answer is “yes”.
“The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has sent its final proposal on whether carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions pose a danger to human health and welfare to the White House for review, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told Reuters on Monday.”
In other news, the White House canceled all deliveries of toilet paper “until further notice”, explaining that it had enough on hand “for the forseeable future.”
Kinda reminds me of the Cowards Principle.
Attack only those bereft of tooth or talon for to do so may result in horrific injuries.
Stay away from true dangers as they are way above your pay grade.
Concentrate on the subjucation of the Sheeple because you will have Wolves behind you.
Yeh, yeh USA
Now you’re called the EPA
Hope I’m wrong folks
The US will be the cleanest 3rd world country on the planet when it reduces the C02 emissions, only so long as the prevailing winds don’t arrive to disperse the C02 coming from the East into US Airspace. The celebration will be brief, if indeed it ever occurs.
They know how to play the game. They made a deal for government to hand them a mandated and expedited complete replacement market of every auto in the country — to be replaced with hybrid/electrics — at our expense — which is of course hidden tax — with no net increase in either wealth or productivity. Great for the UAW, though — go figure.:
http://www.dailytech.com/Auto+Execs+Urge+Government+to+Tax+Fuel+up+to+8Gallon+to+Increase+Fuel+Efficiency/article16727.htm
Bastiat is rolling in his grave: The “broken window” economic fallacy :
http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html#broken_window
In the Australian press the war of words between the “right-wing” Liberals in opposition to the “left-wing” Labor party pushing the ETS over here has escalated. Got to love when the issue is being bandied around for political purposes rather than being debated on scientific and/or economic merit.
Penny W(r)ong our climate change minister is saying skeptics live in “fantasy land”:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/national/6452565/climate-sceptics-in-fantasy-land-wong/
She was famous for not being able to answer even the most basic questions about climate change posed by Family First Senator Steve Fielding (http://www.stevefielding.com.au/).
While the Labor sheeple are united in supporting the crippled ETS legislation (CPRS) the Liberal disunity on the issue is being used to try and wedge the party:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/minchins-climate-change-attack-draws-out-turnbull-critics/story-e6frgczf-1225795999631
Personally I would rather have politicians that speak their opinions than sheepishly tow a party line any day of the week.
But the most stunning piece today is in The Australian, with none other than ole Gorby leveraging off the anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall to preach about the new CC wall that needs to be torn down at COP15:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/tear-down-wall-blocking-our-future/story-e6frg6zo-1225795880053
I can’t wait for the US press to run with this one… the COP15 draft treaty was already branded as socialist, verging on communist, in nature without this king of support 🙂
The Huge Mistake!
The Environmental Protection Agency has directed two agency lawyers to make changes in a video they posted on YouTube that is critical of the Obama administration’s climate policy. But the original video has already been reposted several times by other YouTube users.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/epa-warns-agency-staff-over-video-attacking-climate-bill/
This is rank corruption and stinks.
But I still want to consider one thing – the history. Way back in the sixties, ordinary folk stood up for green issues, against the status quo of the time, for things they believed in. Then in the seventies-eighties, there was a corporate counter-offensive to shut them down. Then corruption crept into the “green” movements as they turned the tide in the nineties against the corporations. Now we have rank corruption with profuse protestations of “green” on both sides but the “science” now stinks.
The hope lies in the growing realization of (once again) ordinary folk, thanks to meeting-places like WUWT, that those in power at the top have either sold out to money or are ignorant of real science. Almost always, in the course of time, power corrupts and reform is up to concerned individuals. You have to use the pressure-head of frustration as a driver of positive action. The higher the pressure, the deeper you have to reach.
It has always been like this. Always it took time to wake up to the threat, and time to muster strength. Study the history of any great reform. I remember watching the “faith” work behind the scenes, in Communist Europe, years before the Berlin Wall fell – I knew which way the wind was blowing. The Hungarian uprising was a disaster; Czechoslovakia edged a little closer to success; Poland edged still closer; finally Russia herself opened the way on. I know, I know, it is still work in progress.
Deep reform will always take generations. Don’t ever give up hope. America is not dead, she is just sleeping.
Who runs our country? That’s easy… with an iron grip. Some of the names have changed or been added to over the years… but link back to the original players of the game.
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=6177
History of the Rothschilds
John F. Hylan 1911 “the real menace of our republic is the invisible government…At the head ‘international bankers.'”
Kath (14:33:59) :
“Living an 1897 lifestyle with a population of around 400 million. Someone isn’t thinking clearly.”
I’d say more like 1837 … and don’t forget 1837 tax revenues. Government will have to start accepting eggs, livestock, and homespun goods as as payment.
Yes, someone isn’t thinking clearly.
Tom In Fla. I wonder the ban of gas powered cars altogether. That would mean the ban also of all carbon fueled vehicles and equipment. I lived in rural Mississippi in my early youth. We share cropped 80 acres with another family.
We used gas fueled tractors to break, prepare, and plant the crops, mostly cotton. all the rest was done by draft animals and human hands. The gas tractors could prepare 40 acres and plant in 3 days. The big tractor was only 28 horse power. That was a nice tractor for the day. to cultivate the same 40 acres with draft animals took 2 weeks. This was done two times and then the crop was “laid by” the application of nitrogen based fertilizer. The rest of the work was done by hand. The transport to market was done by draft animal. One farmer could feed or clothe approximately 12 people. There were lots of people that knew how to farm. There were lots of small family owned farms. Can you imagine returning to the 1950 level of carbon use. Now if you ban all carbon fueled equipment because of CO2 we well next have to ban all draft animals due to their ghg emissions also. Here we come back to the dark ages and it will be freezing cold to boot.
I have great fear for our country and our world.
Bill Derryberry
PS I was born in 1950 and I remember when we got running water in the house. one water tap in the kitchen only cold water. It was 4 more years before we truly had indoor plumbing. amazing the progress we may be about to forfeit. When all your time is dedicated to the gathering of food and heating fuel all other concerns become secondary. With the entitlement mentality today we are in deep trouble. I fear anarchy.
“The EPA didn’t listen to people’s concerns.”
I’m not sure why anyone would be surprised by that.
CO2 is an essential plant food.
With a growing global population, it is essential to INCREASE food production.
Therefore, it is essential to keep increasing CO2 to feed the growing population.
Decreasing CO2 will cause far more death from starvation by reducing food production, than by any “anthropogenic warming.”
Just a comment on the EPA being political. It has been from the beginning.
In 1972, EPA hearing and resulting in over 9000 pages’ worth of transcript concluded that DDT was not a carcinogenic hazard for humans. The exact finding contained the words: “DDT is not a
carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic hazard to man. The uses
under regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on
fresh water fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds, or other
wildlife… and … there is a present need for essential uses of DDT.”
Nonetheless, William Ruckelhaus, first EPA administrator, promptly ignored the findings and issued a ban on DDT stating that it WAS a carcinogen–relying on just 2 disputed animal studies. Probably, he believed he needed to show that the EPA was not some kind of toothless organization.
That should be “EPA hearings lasting months and resulting in over 9000 pages’ worth”.
Nov 09, 2009
Al Gore Encourages Civil Disobedience.
By Oliver Burkeman, UK Guardian
http://m.guardian.co.uk/?id=102202&story=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/07/al-gore-interview-climate-change
Via icecap.us
The endangerment finding is based on ignoring adaptation and any contradictory science. It’s BS:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj29n3/cj29n3-8.pdf