Daniel Simmons writes:
Great work with Watts Up With That on the CRU email scandal. Hopefully this scandal will lead to increased openness in climate science.
With all of the noise about those emails I wanted to bring your attention to an EPA comment period that closes this Friday. As you previously covered on Watts Up With That, EPA is working on declaring that CO2 and GHGs greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare under the Clean Air Act. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/09/epa-sends-co2-endangerment-finding-to-the-white-house/
That endangerment finding is the first step to regulating GHGs and the second is to develop the actual regulations to regulate GHGs for cars and light trucks. On Friday, the comment period for EPA’s proposed regulations on cars and light trucks closes. It would be very helpful to push back on the proposed endangerment finding by pushing back on the proposed regulations on cars and light trucks and sending EPA as many comments as possible on the proposed GHG regulations for cars.
We want to make sure as many people as possible know about this proposed rule and generate as many comments as possible. To facilitate people sending comments to EPA on the proposed rule, we put up a page that contains a model comment to send to EPA. http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/contact_form/index2.php The model comment is completely modifiable.
Also, here is EPA’s Proposed Rule: http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/regulations.htm
and a direct link to the Docket to submit comments to EPA is here: http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#docketDetail?R=EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472
People can also send email on this rule directly to EPA at a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov.
It would be very helpful if you would let your readers know about this comment period. Because of Thanksgiving and the cap-and-trade bills, this proposed rule hasn’t gotten very much attention and yet it relies on the same science as EPA’s other regulations and will help trigger a regulatory cascade of EPA inserting itself into many areas of life because those activities emit GHGs.
Here’s more background: To address climate change (and relying on the standards sources of climate science–the IPCC, NCDC, GISS, etc.) EPA is proposing to use the Clean Air Act to require 35 mpg fleetwide fuel economy standards by 2016—four years faster than Congress’ plan in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Not only will this rule drive up car and truck prices and limit consumer choice, it will start a regulatory cascade with EPA regulating GHGs using a number of sections of the Clean Air Act.
But EPA’s data show that the rule is all cost and no benefit. According to EPA, the proposed rule will increase car and truck prices an average $1,100. (74 Fed. Reg. 49460) As a result of less CO2 in the air, the rule will lead to decrease in global mean temperature by 16 thousandths of a degree Celsius (0.016°C) in 2100 and a decrease in mean sea level rise by 1.5 mm. (74 Fed. Reg. 49589) That’s not a joke—that’s what the rule says. Obviously 16 thousandths of a degree Celsius, 90 years down the road will not affect the climate in any way.
It would be bad enough if the rule only imposed exorbitant costs and with no benefits. But this will start the regulatory cascade that many of us have written about. To finalize this rule, EPA would also finalize their “endangerment finding” (in other words, EPA would find that GHGs from motor vehicles harm public health and welfare). CO2 and GHGs will become subject to National Ambient Air Quality Standards, New Sour Performance Standards, Hazardous Air Quality Standards, among other regulatory schemes.
If EPA makes an endangerment finding for GHGs, that action would make two permitting programs apply to GHGs—prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and Title V. PSD applies to stationary sources which emit more than 250 tons a year and Title V applies to stationary sources which emit 250 tons per year. According to EPA, this would force as many as 6 million buildings (school, churches, hospitals, office buildings, farms, etc.) to comply with the Clean Air Act’s permitting provisions. To try to address this problem, EPA has proposed a “tailoring rule.” The point of the tailoring rule is that 250 tons per year of emissions can be read to mean 25,000 tons per year. Again, that’s not a joke: http://www.openmarket.org/2009/10/01/epa-tailoring-rule-confirms-mass-v-epa-set-the-stage-for-administrative-quagmire-and-economic-disaster/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What Nick Griffin said is correct, unfortunately his party is widely derided in the UK for various reasons (mainly race related).
I hope UKIP will pick up and run with this stance – they already are very realistic on Global Warming – as it would be a huge vote winner for them.
The Tories are seeing their lead cut. If only the penny would drop with them on this issue, they’d have a landslide win next year.
Kick-ass blogpost, great looking weblog, added it to my favorites!
Here in the US, you may as well give the car business to the Koreans and Chinese. As pointed out above the $100 BB or so for the domestic automakers to reach this goal will bankrupt them (again.) Also, many of the pickup trucks and SUV’s produced are working vehicles used by small businesses, so all you are doing is raising the costs for the segment of the economy that generates 80% of new jobs. With what is going on in Washington, the employment picture will NEVER get better.
The other thing that people don’t really realize, is that pollution (which by the way does NOT include CO2) generated by cars is down 95% in the last 50 years. The cost to remove the rest is prohibitive and the benefit is undetectable.
Like I said before in Canada this climategate is hardly registering. Government is acting as though nothing has come to light at all.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091125/greenhouse_meeting_091125/20091125?hub=Canada
Re:
old construction worker (04:35:59) :
and
pyromancer76 (05:50:40) :
Maybe I have misunderstood, but I though that this post was about a particular aspect of the Clean Air Act, which is limiting the fuel consumption for cars and light trucks. It is THAT particular aspect of the law, which is based on CO2 emissions but has other desirable side effects, that I don’t oppose to. If the law, appart from limiting the fuel consumption for cars and trucks, does something else which is not described in the post and affects other parts of the economy with taxes based on CO2 emissions, then of course I oppose to it.
Obama going to Copenhagen!
What a mess he will find!
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Official-Obama-going-to-apf-3029436597.html?x=0
Ecotretas
To anyone here who doesn’t think carbon tax is about the money,
here is a quote from today’s paper. I’m from London, Ontario in
Canada. The London free press Nov. 25-2009. Article “Ontario
Progress Must Be Rewarded”. In it Dalton McGuinty says “There’s
going to be real money to be found in carbon emission reductions”.
So there you have it, right from the horses(asses?) mouth. Beaureaucrats
around the world are simply salivating at the thought of this wonderful
windfall of cash. The science is irrelevant. It’s what the masses believe
that counts.
Breaking News:
Obaka is going to Copenhagen.
Moving before the tide leaves him high and dry, I’m thinking.
Can I ask: How do scientists use ice-core samples to discover past temperatures? I just watched a youtube video in 4 parts by professor Carter: CO2 is it responsible for global warming. Wherein he shows that before the present Holocene period,temperatures fluctuated by up to 1.5degC/DECADE! from ice-core samples.How do they derive the temperature from the ice-cores,Please?
Nylo (01:18:39) :
Sorry, I am a convinced skeptic, but I cannot see how establishing some limit on emissions for cars can be a bad thing to do. A less emitting car is a car that uses less fuel. Upon combustion, it is not only CO2 that you produce, there are other polutants too, real polutants. Less fuel consumption means less polutants in the air. Not to mention that if you use less fuel you are certainly saving money. I would like that law to come true, although I know very well it will do nothing related to saving the world from a supposedly terrible global warming. The reasons are different.
Essentially what you are saying is that the ends justify the means. Sorry, no they don’t. The AGW Lie has to be exposed and destroyed, the EPA is in the process of codifying that lie, and if you think they will stop with cars and trucks then I have a very nice bridge for sale at a bargain price.
PrezObama is going to Copenhagen. Heard it on the news this morning. We are doomed, at least temporarily.
Although I know it won’t make any difference I submitted the below comment:
CO2 is not a pollutant. Rather, CO2 is a naturally occurring gas. We, and all animals, exhale CO2. If you regulate it, you are literally regulating whether I can breathe or not. If that’s not totalitarianism, I don’t know what is. The Federal Government doesn’t have the right to regulate what I exhale. Nope, not in the Constitution anyplace!
Furthermore, all this climate hysteria is a result of the likes of Micheal Mann and Phil Jones who have been exposed as frauds who did not follow the Scientific Method even remotely. They are also exposed as likely criminals in at least 2 countries by colluding to avoid/deny/delay Freedom of Information Requests in the USA and the UK. That is criminal and they cannot be trusted!
@Steve Keohane (04:59:47) :
Nylo (01:18:39) : I find it fascinating every winter when oxygenating compounds are added to the gasoline here to ‘reduce emissions’, and coincidentally I get about 8% fewer miles per gallon. This is true for the past twenty years and 5-6 vehicles. Care to explain how that works?
——-
Sure, its the law of unintended consequences, L-O-B-B-Y-I-S-T-S, and VESTED SPECIAL INTERESTS [and utter insanity rules the roost].
Science starts and ends with observation.
“This is January weather”, to quote Kevin Trenberth in October. Really?
What kills me about the whole AGW delusion, is that no matter what we do to try to change the atmosphere, none of us will live long enough to ever know if it made any difference AT ALL in world temperature. One big volcano and every mitigation was a waste. Maybe we should instead make up a Volcano Prayer for the Salvation of the Planet. Makes as much sense, possibly more.
I try to imagine how it could be 11F here the last two mornings.
This garbage about mini millimeters of sea level rise and micro fractions of degrees in this EPA action are just unimaginable arrogance on the part of geeks who sit in city cubicles. They would be better off reading the Farmers’ Almanac.
Please continue to let us know where to express our outrage and disbelief as this charade continues.
The Verdict is out, spread the message:
“Scientists” falsified the databases on which alarmist models are based. The reports of the IPCC are untenable — their “scientific” basis has been demolished.
So too the whole “sustainable” energy industry. Money talks, but money can also walk, and it will, when recognition of the fraud spreads. Support for alternative energy projects will fade. There is no cause for vast subsidies. Carbon fuels can be phased out slowly, through market forces, as more efficient and cheaper sources of energy are developed.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/crus_source_code_climategate_r.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/climate_fraud_and_the_environm.html
from: http://www.seablogger.com
http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#submitComment?R=0900006480a2df92
more direct comment link…
http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#submitComment?R=0900006480a2df92
Nylo (01:18:39)
Oh my, nothing wrong wanting less fuel consumption, who wouldn’t those days, but please skip the BS.
old construction worker (04:35:59) :
Nylo (01:18:39) :
“Sorry, I am a convinced skeptic, but I cannot see how establishing some limit on emissions for cars can be a bad thing to do. A less emitting car is a car that uses less fuel. Upon combustion, it is not only CO2 that you produce, there are other polutants too, real polutants. Less fuel consumption means less polutants in the air. Not to mention that if you use less fuel you are certainly saving money. I would like that law to come true, although I know very well it will do nothing related to saving the world from a supposedly terrible global warming. The reasons are different.’
So you want to regulate a CO2,non toxic gas, to reduce the real polutants?
Make your argument that’s a sound policy”
I agree with your view that it is a good thing to make cars more fuel efficient and cleaner but not for the wrong reasons and with potentially negative results for passenger security and user specifications.
There are still big gains to be achieved by making the combustion engine more efficient and “cleaner” and we certainly should stimulate that.
But there will arrive at a point where weight saving measures and loading capacity could get compromised by those EPA rules. For me that’s a bridge too far.
Is the Supreme Court going to ask for a do-over? Their first look see into science showed us why judges are not the place for science.
SpencBC (06:25:29) :
I hope you filed a complaint. It’s easy to do.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/HTMLTemplate/!ctvPop/News/Feedback?date=20091125&slug=greenhouse_meeting_091125&archive=CTVNews&outputFormat=TextEmailFormat-realtime&brand=generic&articleURL=http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091125/greenhouse_meeting_091125/20091125&hub=TopStoriesV2
I did.
Here’s the confirmation on the Copenhagen story:
http://2su.de/4M
In the Netherlands a lot of effort has been invested to build a bus with a low center of gravity to prevent it from turning over, statistically a serious cause for bus accidents.
What did they do with that bus?
They installed an entire battery of natural gas cylinders on the roof.
This seriously undermines the safety of the bus.
I am all in for efficient vehicles and clean air but I reject any plan that compromises the safety of a vehicle, especially if it is used for public transport.
Forget about CO2. The world isn’t warming anymore so it can’t be CO2.
Henrik Svensmark nailed the answer to the wall right in front of them in ’96 and they laughed at him. Here’s what caused global warming, watch:
They won’t be laughing at Svensmark now. He got access to an old particle accelerator in Switzerland. The experiments are being condicted right now:
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/Research/CLOUD-en.html
They’ll have irrefutable proof in the Spring, but you don’t have to wait that long because the now quiet Sun is causing exactly what Svensmark predicted. Do none of these charlatans have a backbone? They all know the truth now. The first one among them who stands up and shouts “Stop!” will be a hero.
If they don’t own up long before Copenhagen they risk condemning humanity to the guilt of an original sin they didn’t commit and a life of working to buy indulgences for breathing.
Watch the Youtube video up there, it wasn’t really warming; it’s a cycle.
I do not intend to be argumentative with this comment, so I won’t argue if folks want to criticize it. I just thought I’d put in my 2 cents. 🙂
While I disagreed strongly with the original endangerment finding (and submitted my own comment), I cannot bring myself to disagree with this proposed change. Many of the arguments I see above are classic examples of the slippery slope fallacy, wherein Action A is declared to be bad not because it in and of itself is bad, but because it could lead to Actions B, C, and D which are bad. I do not subscribe to this type of thinking.
I personally believe that it is our responsibility to do sensible things to reduce our impact on the environment. This is why I strongly support incentives for individuals and businesses to increase use of renewable energy, realistic proposals to reduce fossil fuel dependence (such as nuclear power), alterations to the residential and commercial building codes to improve energy efficiency, and, yes, increasing fuel efficiency for vehicles.
What I am adamantly opposed to are proposals that serve more to cater to a particular special interest and/or increase tax revenue (and, by extension, depress economic growth) such as cap-and-trade schemes, continued funding of unprofitable and counterproductive enterprises like corn ethanol, and energy taxes.
I felt strongly enough about the original EPA endangerment finding to submit my own comment. However, I cannot bring myself to submit a comment on this particular issue.
The Denialists are complaining about the code? Wake up. The data was just as bad. Garbage-in-garbage-out is a phrase used to describe bad information being fed to a computer giving useless results.
These geniuses took it to a whole new level:
They put garbage data into a garbage program and managed to get it to give whatever answer they wanted! Nobel Prizes all round!
Here’s the laureates’ winning equation: *drumroll*
Garbage into Garbage = Whatever you want!!
FergalR it was actually WORSE than that. they designed the program to produce the hockey stick regardless of the data input.