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
Roger Sowell (20:14:42) :
Do you think this will take care of California’s problem as well?
How fitting that such an arrogant and tone deaf regulation come to fruition on Pearl Harbor Day.
steve (19:21:50) :
“I hate to sound like a ‘one world govt’ conspiracy nut but think about it…”
If you aren’t thinking about it, then you arent thinking -this has always been all about politics
It should scare any thinking person.
If those in charge think we will go with out a fight, they are sadly mistaken & will pay a heavy price for it in 2010.
First climate-gate and now this. It reminds me of a person so scared that they grabbed a gun for protection and then shot themselves in the foot. Now being scared and in pain they rapidly reloaded and shot the other foot. This has got to go to court now and with the US laws on disclosure things should get interesting. And for those saying you can’t win in a rigged court I say you don’t have to. The final judgment will be made at the voting booth, and I suspect the anyone this ideologically driven is probably reloading yet again and looking for a third foot.
EPA’s first statement is wrong:
Science overwhelmingly shows greenhouse gas concentrations at unprecedented levels due to human activity
I haven’t heard that one before – unprecedented ghg concentrations. Nice of them to start out their “scientific” conclusions with another Whopper.
Any responsible media people around here?
Only in the 60s during an earthquake. Obviously due to man-made CO2.
If all this madness is too much for anyone to bear and you are wondering how did we ever get to this ridiculous point then I highly recommend this documentary, which explains the origin of idioting and how idiots have played a vital role in society for centuries. While many idiots are self taught, this documentary confirms that they have been formally teaching idiocy at the University of East Anglia since at least the 70’s (when the documentary was made).
If you listen at 2:42 you can hear the narrator say,
“Mr Phil Jones is no ordinary idiot. He is a lecturer in idiocy at the University of East Anglia. After 3 years of study.. these apprentice idiots receive a diploma of idiocy, a handful of mud and a kick on the face.”
from comment #5: A day that will live in infamy, when an American government agency decided to declare a natural component of the atmosphere a pollutant it could regulate.
Ozone?
When I heard this news this morning, I had a different reaction. Pity the poor EPA, for now they get to choose between:
1) not regulating CO2, and getting buried under lawsuits from the greenies; or
2) trying to regulate CO2 and discovering that it’s effectively impossible — that it can’t be done without causing massive shortages in essential services like telephone, cellphone, electricity, food distribution…
Sit back and enjoy. Here’s where the fun begins.
Has anyone who wants electricity bills to “necessarily skyrocket” thought about what will happen to the elderly on fixed incomes who can barely get by now?
We will find some of them frozen to death in the wintertime since their houses will be too cold.
And we STILL don’t have the code for the “value-enhanced” CO2 anomaly graph. Anybody wanna make a bet that within 3 years, the other shoe is dropped on that graph as well?
Apologies as it maybe off topic but knowing what I know now the OP15 opening film is frightening…how do we stop these lunatics?
Anthony:
Sheesh, one disappears for a couple hours to feed and get the kids to bed and there is a veritable encyclopedia written below my comments. Keep it up. This is one of the best ways to fight this crap. Yes, we in Canada are in the same boat sailing straight for mediocrity.
Brent et al from Calgary. I actually live in BC. I’ll volunteer to help build the pipeline through to Port Hardy though. Believe it or not, finding an alternative cust. for the oil is the best way to help our friends to the south. Competition is such a wonderful thing.
Joanne. Under which arm does a bureaucracy like the EPA fall under? It doesn’t readily appear to fall under any. Does it report directly to the exec. branch? If so, control of all physical resources to a branch consisting of 2 elected, the rest appointed, (yes they go through congressional nominations but Van Jones go through!!) is very dangerous. I would have thought it would have been created and therefore directed by the legislative. No matter what, for them to have this much authority to control the lives of people is very frightening. Is it only through the courts one could repeal this thing? If so, you’d better fight every Sup Crt. appointment Bama makes.
Mike Hodges
Proud Supporter of Friends of Science.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/
I just came across an article by Gavin Schmidt, dated 1st October 2009, in which he says at the end:
”ALL CLIMATE MODELS ARE WRONG, BUT SOME OF THEM ARE USEFUL, AND BY WORKING MORE CLOSELY TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE ACTUALLY BEING POSED BY POLICYMAKERS, WE CAN MAKE THEM MORE USEFUL STILL”.
Useful to answer policymakers who are posing questions like – How much should we tax them? How much CO2 should we reduce (by shutting down our power plants, industry and farms)?
Economic suicide on the basis of projections by climate models which the blighter Gavin Schmidt say are ALL (every one of them) WRONG!
Has the world gone totally insane?
“Tomorrow I am taking the catalytic converter off my car. I suggest everyone else do the same so as to comply with the new EPA regulations. After that I am going to purchase another rifle.”
No, no, no. That is just wrong. Get a 12-gauge shotgun. That’s the gun that won the West. Can load it with anything from rock salt to buckshot to solid slugs. Ammunition is inexpensive and plentiful. I highly recommend a Trench Gun (as anything banned by the Geneva Convention has got to be pretty lethal), which is also well-made.
To Nicks post at 18:13:19 “Why don’t we ban DIESEL first, it’s the one that causes health effects”
My new job now is driving truck. Did you know that the new diesel trucks now burn so clean that the exhaust pipes don’t even get dirty? No kidding, the inside of the pipes are perfectly clean. So I think the dirty diesel problem has been fixed.
Ed
Pamela Gray (18:04:59) :
“Sad to say, but both the Republicans and Democrats are to blame for this one.”
Come on, get real, where’s the proportianality?
AGW is a massive left wing movement carrying nearly every let wing cause along. Virtually 100% of elected Democrats are on board while most Republicans are not. The relative few Rs who have jumped into the AGW vanguard does not equate to the Democrat machine pushing this.
Oregon is the ultimate example with Democrats dominating every level of goverment and all of them participating int eh movement to the nth degree.
If all you did is listen to both left and right talk radio or watch left and right TV with their respective party guests it could not more clear. So where and how do you get this both are to blame thing?
I supose the R’s can share a fraction of the blame for not energizing enough opposition to the left’s movement but that’s not what you said or inferred.
There are many democrats who are skeptics of course but their party, their progressiveness, their agendas are all entirely behind every aspect of AGW and all of the policies coming.
In stark contrast the Republicans are not on board and they have finally come out stronger in this raging battle which will only get worse before it subsides.
Wayne, yes indeed……Faraway…….hmmm, i figured i’d been down every road in Alberta by now……apparently not, where abouts is that?
So the USA EPA has of today classed all GHG gases as pollutants no doubt us Australians being such good little citizens will too. Being carbon based life forms which breath out nearly a KG of CO2 per day I and you are a pollutant and don’t die and decay! The most potent GHG is water vapour so it is also a pollutant. The last important pollutant on this basis is methane, that is flatulence. So repentant sinners and stop it now.
The most important countries in this debate are 1 China, 2 USA and 3 Russia. We must insist they bring their emissions per capita down to 3 tonnes, Somali can do it so why can’t they? If they don’t lets set up tariff barriers, if that does not work let us declare war! Wonder what a solar powered army tank looks like?
Of the 29 tonnes each Aussie emits per year only 10% comes from the home the other 90% is industry, transport and city buildings. Governments must calculate how dear energy will have to be so that we each reduce our footprint by 26 tonnes and set that as the price! Easy just ask Bob Brown our Greens senator.
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.
Smokey, great cartoon. I hope he is a witness. Unfortunately, it is likely he will not qualify as an expert. It would be great sport to cross-examine the Nobel-prize winner and pin him down as he makes one blunder after another – e.g. the earth’s core is millions of degrees.
Actually, it would not be a fair contest. No disrespect to some politicians (very few), but as a group, they don’t know science or engineering or law. A good attorney should terrify them.
Does this ruling mean that people with respiratory diseases will be able to sue businesses?
This scam is way, way bigger than fraudulent climate science and an isolated scheme to make money out of thin hot air. And it can not be reduced 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?
Endangerment and Cause or
Contribute Findings for
Greenhouse Gases Under
Section 202(a) of the Clean Air
Act:
EPA’s Response to Public
Comments
The EPA comments can be found here: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html
I emigrated to this country more than 40 years ago. I managed to create a good life for myself and my family. My sense of well being has been based not just on material well being, but also on the knowledge that the government, by and large was competent and well intentioned. The political parties may have had different view of how to achieve these objectives, but by and large they shared these objectives.
This EPA finding makes me seriously doubt my previous view of the competence and good intentions of the government – at least the present administration-. I hope that the constitutional safeguards will prove to be adequate to protect the nation against the manipulations of an unscrupulous and power hungry administration.
OT, but still interesting:
http://www.news.com.au/national/kevin-rudd-pledges-to-repay-ets-rise/comments-e6frfkvr-1225808012641
It looks like a ponzi scheme, sounds like a ponzi scheme then it likely is a ponzi scheme.