EPA’ s Lisa Jackson panders to Copenhagen on opening day. Planned for months of course, with public comment ignored. It is now the people -vs- the EPA, coming to a courtroom near you.
From the EPA press release:
EPA: Greenhouse Gases Threaten Public Health and the Environment
Science overwhelmingly shows greenhouse gas concentrations at unprecedented levels due to human activity
WASHINGTON – After a thorough examination of the scientific evidence and careful consideration of public comments, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced today that greenhouse gases (GHGs) threaten the public health and welfare of the American people. EPA also finds that GHG emissions from on-road vehicles contribute to that threat.
GHGs are the primary driver of climate change, which can lead to hotter, longer heat waves that threaten the health of the sick, poor or elderly; increases in ground-level ozone pollution linked to asthma and other respiratory illnesses; as well as other threats to the health and welfare of Americans.
“These long-overdue findings cement 2009’s place in history as the year when the United States Government began addressing the challenge of greenhouse-gas pollution and seizing the opportunity of clean-energy reform,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “Business leaders, security experts, government officials, concerned citizens and the United States Supreme Court have called for enduring, pragmatic solutions to reduce the greenhouse gas pollution that is causing climate change. This continues our work towards clean energy reform that will cut GHGs and reduce the dependence on foreign oil that threatens our national security and our economy.”
EPA’s final findings respond to the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision that GHGs fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants. The findings do not in and of themselves impose any emission reduction requirements but rather allow EPA to finalize the GHG standards proposed earlier this year for new light-duty vehicles as part of the joint rulemaking with the Department of Transportation.
On-road vehicles contribute more than 23 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions. EPA’s proposed GHG standards for light-duty vehicles, a subset of on-road vehicles, would reduce GHG emissions by nearly 950 million metric tons and conserve 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of model year 2012-2016 vehicles.
EPA’s endangerment finding covers emissions of six key greenhouse gases – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride – that have been the subject of scrutiny and intense analysis for decades by scientists in the United States and around the world.
Scientific consensus shows that as a result of human activities, GHG concentrations in the atmosphere are at record high levels and data shows that the Earth has been warming over the past 100 years, with the steepest increase in warming in recent decades. The evidence of human-induced climate change goes beyond observed increases in average surface temperatures; it includes melting ice in the Arctic, melting glaciers around the world, increasing ocean temperatures, rising sea levels, acidification of the oceans due to excess carbon dioxide, changing precipitation patterns, and changing patterns of ecosystems and wildlife.
President Obama and Administrator Jackson have publicly stated that they support a legislative solution to the problem of climate change and Congress’ efforts to pass comprehensive climate legislation. However, climate change is threatening public health and welfare, and it is critical that EPA fulfill its obligation to respond to the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that determined that greenhouse gases fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants.
EPA issued the proposed findings in April 2009 and held a 60-day public comment period. The agency received more than 380,000 comments, which were carefully reviewed and considered during the development of the final findings.
Information on EPA’s findings: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html
I really cry a lot inside for my country that has been going down the drain my entire 48 year life. We need to kick the UN and their Agenda 21 out of our country. Their brand of education just gives us this.
George Carlin ~ The American Dream
And this; Pathetic.
People sign petition to “increase inflation to 100%” to cause hyperinflation.
Great collection of quotes, Robbie.
This agenda is way, way bigger than fraudulent climate science and the ‘cap-‘n-tax’ scheme. And it’s a mistake to reduce it to a political battle between Democratic and Republican or liberal and conservative belief systems. In my opinion, the most interesting question right now is: How far down the rabbit hole is WUWT prepared to go?
paulhan (18:25:47) :
I felt physically sick watching that. I just wonder what will happen as temperatures continue to drop. How will they justify things then?
The answer is that theyll continue to use the flawed models and get the results they want.
Then theyll proclaim how they have saved us.
If we had the right to take up arms in the UK i think id be just about ready to.
TH (21:26:51) :
‘The winter of 2009-2010 in Colorado is already legendary. The cold and snow is unprecedented. It looks and feels like Siberia around here.
The “big lie” has come to America.’
Having lived in Leadville, Co back in the 70’s, record snow fall at Climax was around 450″ in one year. I can not recall the year, but it seems to me it was back in the 50’s or 40’s.
The EPA has moved to Springfield and is now headed by Crusty the Clown.
I’m not going to laugh at the antics of these nutjobs because where the US government “leads” on AGW the UK government follows so closely behind they’d require surgical separation.
At what point in this madness will the biggest GHG, H2O, be declared dangerous to life, limb and sanity?
“Scientific consensus shows that as a result of human activities, GHG concentrations in the atmosphere are at record high levels and data shows that the Earth has been warming over the past 100 years, with the steepest increase in warming in recent decades. The evidence of human-induced climate change goes beyond observed increases in average surface temperatures; it includes melting ice in the Arctic, melting glaciers around the world, increasing ocean temperatures, rising sea levels, acidification of the oceans due to excess carbon dioxide, changing precipitation patterns, and changing patterns of ecosystems and wildlife.”
How can anyone say this with a straight face? Can these statements be challenged in a court of law as they have actually been uttered by the US EPA?
Wayne Delbeke (21:48:33) :
“Andy – it was 38 below this morning. It is 30 below outside right now. I have burned about a half cord of wood today heating the house. All wood off my property that I grew. Does that make me carbon Neutral? Or if I lived in the US, I guess down the road I would be in trouble. (I also have a geothermal system for secondary heat and propane for back up hot water and a house with one foot thick walls to reduce heat loss.
Wander what Al Gore has in his waterfront Condo? Probably doesn’t care.
Wayne in Faraway”
Wayne, Yah heck sounds like your neutral there…….our condo doesn’t need heat until sustained -25C so maybe Jim Prentice could forward me a several grand a month cheque because apparently we’re cooling the planet now. The geothermal sounds like a good plan…..takin advantage of that 1-2 million deg C heat sink is always a good idee eh?
The Goracle? ..a direct dedicated transmission line to the nearest substation/ power plant. (maybe a couple solar cells & token wind fan on his roof to keep up appearances) I heard the Cat 3512 in his yacht burns biodiesel though….it just emits green soot, green CO2 & daisy petals.
What does “well mixed gases” mean and can the individual gases be considered pollutants individually? Even if the intention is to consider the gases together in order to deal with vehicles, at what point will someone file a lawsuit suggesting that the individual gases be regulated since they all mix in the “public” air – like, say, secondhand smoke.
In addition, do EPA findings affect other rules such as OSHA regulations? If they do, what are the implications for people working in large buildings with many employees exhaling all day – particularly since it is likely that the other gases mentioned in the findings may also be exuded from materials in the building?
If carbon dioxide can be considered a threat to public health and welfare in its own right, what about say, apple or orange orchards or wheat fields, which can potentially become major polluters at night (or come to think of it, even during the day). Or your front lawn.
For that matter, will homeowner associations be able to enforce regulations which require that front lawns be cut, since that will increase the pollutants in the neighbourhood.
What about zoos? Or schools? Or aerobic classes at gyms?
Can cyclists become polluters if they are riding too fast?
The devil will obviously be in the details, but the way the findings are written are vague enough that you can potentially stick it to your neighbour while they are doing something perfectly innocuous. Or at least, what used to be perfectly innocuous.
Nowhere in Article II Section 8 of the Constitution has the federal government been given the authority to even create the EPA. It is long past time to dismantle the onerous administrative agencies of the executive branch.
I hear on the news on SBS in Australia, the US has declared CO2 (Or in fact on SBS, GHGs) as harmful to humans.
I wonder what the US economy will look like when all air travel is banned, beer and fizzy-drinks is banned, all car-racing is banned, the automotive industry is torn down, coal plants are forced shut, all oil industry is halted, etc. etc… would this result in an end-all scenario? Not only for the US but it would completely collapse the world economy and most likely result in serious implications in political stability, even wars. I sure hope that this GHG-fascism is not allowed to triumph. Must be stopped.
Waving its fabricated IPCC figleaf, the US government has declared a climate emergency and imposed martial law.
I think we should tell them about di-hydrogen-monoxide and nitrogen, also dangerous to humans (when inhaled too much of it).
OK, too many comments to read thoroughly, so I hope this wasn’t brought up:
Shouldn’t someone with free time and a lawyer IMMEDIATELY sue everyone involved in the Copenhagen debacle, the cause being gross abuse of the planet by emitting GHGs that threaten the public health.
It can be shown that the amount of GHGs coming from this Copenhagen crap FAR exceed what any reasonable person would consider normal, and thus could potentially harm public health, according to the EPA.
Boy, that would be sweet, if you could ever get it to court. The only way the Cope Jokers could defend their actions would be to try to DISPROVE the EPA’s ruling..
Wishful thinking – I know.
Here’s a good comment on this:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100019206/climategate-barack-obamas-rule-by-epa-decree-is-a-coup-detat-against-congress-made-in-britain/
Meanwhile, savour this piece of news, announced today:
“Climate change advisers have decided that an extensive building programme at Heathrow — including the construction of a third runway — can proceed without jeopardising the Government’s carbon emissions targets.
The Committee on Climate Change will report today that 138 million extra passenger could use British airports in 2050, an increase of 60 per cent, without breaching government targets to reduce aviation emissions to below 2005 levels.”
Link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6948138.ece
You couldn’t make it up …
Hi American Mates, message from Aussies down under: We hope you guys do all in your power to stop this new world government from forming to regulate CO2 – we had an ETS bill here that has just been defeated FOR THE SECOND TIME in our Senate – our Prime Minister could call a double dissolution election – that means all seats in parliament are declared vacant and we all go to the polls to vote. Our idiot PM won’t do that! He won’t give us the choice to make the decision because he knows WE DON’T WANT IT! We have a good economy here and we know we will be going down the hole if we vote for an ETS – our power bills will double, and imagine the costs passed on for everything else being produced using power… will stuff our economy completely… Our leader is trying to tell us porkies saying we won’t be paying for it… Our opposition leader got booted out last week and he has strong ties to Goldman Sachs who wants to do the derivatives trading on this CO2. It is another bank scam and you guys are already paying for the last one… Wake Up America!
Throw out your Star Spangled Banner and learn the new
NEW USA NATIONAL HYMMNS.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WH6Ajowgg4U&feature=related
Sorry, delete that second youtube-video.
Didn’t know the that German crap was goona appear above.
What’s all this banning talk here?
Kommisar Jackson will decide who gets banned and who doesn’t.
So be nice to her. Don’t be late with your protection money payments!
And now something for the idiots who may happen to hold a union card:
Wasn’t that nice?
So when do we start putting ip the murals of Kommrad Jackson and Obama, our Dear Leaders?
Two Plus Two = Five.
Wes T. (18:23:16) :
“Andy_ (18:08:27) :
Without a matching bill passed through the Senate this doesn’t really have any teeth, am i right???”
Unfortunately, that’s not correct. The Clean Air Act and Amendments grabs ‘pollutants’. Declaring GHGs an endangerment is the first step to officially calling them a pollutant. Then existing rules kick in to force the regulation.
============
One way to defang the EPA would be for a Sense of the House or Sense of the Senate resolution being passed that could express oppostion to one or more of the following:
To this EPA ruling,
Later on, to specific EPA rulings.
To the concept that CO2 is a pollutant within the meaning of the Act of Congress that the EPA is relying on.
In favor of there being a thorough scientific independent re-examination of the case for AGW. (This would be best, because it would be hardest for the Democrats to credibly oppose, especially in an election year.)
Probably these won’t be proposed until and unless the Republicans sense that this will be a winning issue for them in 2010. So far, it’s certainly one that has energized their base.
I thought America is a democratic country??
This seems more like what a dictator would do: ram through EPA legislation so that he can get through the NWO agenda at Copenhagen and impose a hefty tax on middle-class Americans.
Even the Australians were smart enough to avoid this (so far) by shooting down Rudd’s ETS bill.
Will Americans fight for their rights or bend down to the new dark lords?