U.S. Set To Regulate Global Warming Gases
The U.S. Environment Protection Agency on Friday declared that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases sent off by cars and many industrial plants "endanger public health and welfare," setting the stage for regulating them under federal clean air laws.
By announcing the proposed finding, the Environmental Protection Agency is setting in motion new government actions to limit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which would have widespread economic and social impact on how the United States produces and consumes energy, from requiring better fuel efficiency for automobiles to requiring power plants and other industrial sources to reduce emissions of pollutants that contribute to climate change.
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said the EPA analysis "confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations" and warrants steps to curtail it.
Environmentalists hailed the policy shift.
"The importance is that the federal government will now begin setting limits for the first time on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas pollutants something the Bush Administration refused for 8 years to do as the problem grew worse and worse," the Sierra Club's David Bookbinder told CBS News correspondent Bob Orr.
But any new pollution caps targeting climate change won't be in place any time soon. Regulations by the EPA's own admission could take years, and face likely court challenges.
And they wouldn't be cheap. A crackdown on auto exhaust and new requirements reining in factory emissions could cost untold billions at a time manufacturers and businesses are fighting just to survive a recession, Orr reports.
The Obama Administration would prefer to hold off on regulations and let Democrats on Capitol Hill pass actual laws curbing carbon emissions, Orr reports. But Republicans, calling that idea a new energy tax, are already promising a fight.
Friday's action by the EPA triggered a 60-day comment period before the agency issues a final endangerment ruling. That would be followed by a proposal on how to regulate the emissions.
The agency said in its finding that "in both magnitude and probability, climate change is an enormous problem" and that carbon dioxide and five other gases "that are responsible for it endanger public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act."
The EPA concluded that the science pointing to man-made pollution as a cause of global warming is "compelling and overwhelming." It also said tailpipe emissions from motor vehicles contribute to climate change.
The action was prompted by a Supreme Court ruling from two years ago that said greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act and must be regulated if found to be a danger to human health or public welfare.
In addition to carbon dioxide, a product of burning fossil fuels, the EPA finding covers five other emissions that scientists believe are warming the earth when they concentrate in the atmosphere: Methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).
The court case, brought by Massachusetts, focused only on emissions from automobiles. But it is widely assumed that if the EPA must regulate emissions from cars and trucks, it will have no choice but to control identical pollution from power plants and industrial sources.
However, the Bush administration strongly opposed using the Clean Air Act to address climate change and stalled on producing the so-called "endangerment finding" demanded by the High Court in its April 2007 ruling.
Last year the Bush White House forced the EPA to reverse a scientific finding that the Clean Air Act could be used to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, claiming that doing so was the "wrong way" to address the pollutants contributing to climate change.
Jackson said while the agency is prepared to move forward with regulations under the Clean Air Act, the Obama administration would prefer that Congress addressed the climate issue through "cap-and-trade" legislation limiting pollution that can contribute to global warming.
While EPA officials said the agency may still be many months from actually issuing such regulation, the threat of dealing with climate change by regulation could spur some hesitant members of Congress to find another way to address the problem.
Congress is considering imposing an economy-wide cap on greenhouse gas emissions along with giving industry the ability to trade emission allowances to mitigate costs. Legislation could be considered by the House before the August congressional recess.
"The (EPA) decision is a game changer. It now changes the playing field with respect to legislation," said Rep. Ed Markey, a Democrat whose Energy and Commerce subcommittee is drafting broad limits on greenhouse emissions. "It's now no longer doing a bill or doing nothing. It is now a choice between regulation and legislation."
Sen. Barbara Boxer, a Democrat who heads the Environment and Public Works Committee responsible for climate legislation, said EPA's action is "a wake-up call for Congress" - deal with it directly through legislation or let the EPA regulate.
Warning that global warming threatens "our health, our economy, and our children's prosperity," Environmental Defense Fund attorney Vickie Patton commended the EPA's move, saying, "The U.S. is taking its first steps as a nation to confront climate change."
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged world leaders to respond with the same urgency to climate change as they did to the global financial crisis. He said in a speech at Princeton University that climate change could have even more dire effects than a recession.
© 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report. By announcing the proposed finding, the Environmental Protection Agency is setting in motion new government actions to limit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which would have widespread economic and social impact on how the United States produces and consumes energy, from requiring better fuel efficiency for automobiles to requiring power plants and other industrial sources to reduce emissions of pollutants that contribute to climate change.
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said the EPA analysis "confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations" and warrants steps to curtail it.
Environmentalists hailed the policy shift.
"The importance is that the federal government will now begin setting limits for the first time on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas pollutants something the Bush Administration refused for 8 years to do as the problem grew worse and worse," the Sierra Club's David Bookbinder told CBS News correspondent Bob Orr.
But any new pollution caps targeting climate change won't be in place any time soon. Regulations by the EPA's own admission could take years, and face likely court challenges.
And they wouldn't be cheap. A crackdown on auto exhaust and new requirements reining in factory emissions could cost untold billions at a time manufacturers and businesses are fighting just to survive a recession, Orr reports.
The Obama Administration would prefer to hold off on regulations and let Democrats on Capitol Hill pass actual laws curbing carbon emissions, Orr reports. But Republicans, calling that idea a new energy tax, are already promising a fight.
Friday's action by the EPA triggered a 60-day comment period before the agency issues a final endangerment ruling. That would be followed by a proposal on how to regulate the emissions.
The agency said in its finding that "in both magnitude and probability, climate change is an enormous problem" and that carbon dioxide and five other gases "that are responsible for it endanger public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act."
The EPA concluded that the science pointing to man-made pollution as a cause of global warming is "compelling and overwhelming." It also said tailpipe emissions from motor vehicles contribute to climate change.
The action was prompted by a Supreme Court ruling from two years ago that said greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act and must be regulated if found to be a danger to human health or public welfare.
In addition to carbon dioxide, a product of burning fossil fuels, the EPA finding covers five other emissions that scientists believe are warming the earth when they concentrate in the atmosphere: Methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).
The court case, brought by Massachusetts, focused only on emissions from automobiles. But it is widely assumed that if the EPA must regulate emissions from cars and trucks, it will have no choice but to control identical pollution from power plants and industrial sources.
However, the Bush administration strongly opposed using the Clean Air Act to address climate change and stalled on producing the so-called "endangerment finding" demanded by the High Court in its April 2007 ruling.
Last year the Bush White House forced the EPA to reverse a scientific finding that the Clean Air Act could be used to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, claiming that doing so was the "wrong way" to address the pollutants contributing to climate change.
Jackson said while the agency is prepared to move forward with regulations under the Clean Air Act, the Obama administration would prefer that Congress addressed the climate issue through "cap-and-trade" legislation limiting pollution that can contribute to global warming.
While EPA officials said the agency may still be many months from actually issuing such regulation, the threat of dealing with climate change by regulation could spur some hesitant members of Congress to find another way to address the problem.
Congress is considering imposing an economy-wide cap on greenhouse gas emissions along with giving industry the ability to trade emission allowances to mitigate costs. Legislation could be considered by the House before the August congressional recess.
"The (EPA) decision is a game changer. It now changes the playing field with respect to legislation," said Rep. Ed Markey, a Democrat whose Energy and Commerce subcommittee is drafting broad limits on greenhouse emissions. "It's now no longer doing a bill or doing nothing. It is now a choice between regulation and legislation."
Sen. Barbara Boxer, a Democrat who heads the Environment and Public Works Committee responsible for climate legislation, said EPA's action is "a wake-up call for Congress" - deal with it directly through legislation or let the EPA regulate.
Warning that global warming threatens "our health, our economy, and our children's prosperity," Environmental Defense Fund attorney Vickie Patton commended the EPA's move, saying, "The U.S. is taking its first steps as a nation to confront climate change."
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged world leaders to respond with the same urgency to climate change as they did to the global financial crisis. He said in a speech at Princeton University that climate change could have even more dire effects than a recession.
Popular on CBSNews.com
- No fatalities in I-5 bridge collapse in NW Wash. 128 Comments
- Authorities find cause of Wash. bridge collapse
- Washington state bridge collapses 20 Photos
- Boy Scouts approve plan to accept openly gay boys 541 Comments
- Kansas reporters run for tornado shelter during newscast
- Clean-up efforts underway in Okla. 29 Photos
- Shelton, Underwood coming to aid of Oklahomans
- Kids, teachers from destroyed Okla. school reunite
By Matt McGrath
BBC News science reporter
Generating station in Sun Valley, California
Increased pollution has enhanced plant productivity, the report says
Air pollution may be helping the fight against global warming by enhancing the ability of plants to absorb carbon dioxide, scientists say.
Since the 1960s, increased levels of atmospheric pollution have enhanced plant productivity by as much as one quarter, research has found.
In terms of carbon dioxide, this means that an extra 10% has been stored in the soil. This study highlights some of the complications that arise when we try and tackle global warming.
As the world attempts to reduce the amount of smog and particulates in the atmosphere to improve human health, it will require even greater efforts to cut back on carbon dioxide.
This new research shows that plants will simply not absorb as much carbon dioxide in cleaner air conditions.
The research will also add weight to arguments about geo-engineering, the idea of curbing global warming by adding reflective materials to the atmosphere.
US President Barack Obama's chief scientific adviser, Professor John Holdren, recently told reporters that such ideas, once dismissed as half-baked, would have to be seriously discussed, such was the scale of the climate challenge.
Posted by louiville2 at 6:26 AM : Apr 22, 2009
The only problem I have is the supposed scientists who oppose GW have not offered a model that explains the current observations.
For example, how do these scientists explain the loss of sea ice in the Artic Ocean?
Is there a big string of Volcanos that have suddenly become active to heat the ocean water or is it the decrease in reflectivitity that increases the absorption of sunlight?
You talk about staticistic error. Well, we both know that there are outliers both above the mean and below the mean. Given that extreames will cancel each other out in a system that is not undergoing change. If you cannot detect the differences in temperatures you need to look at other natural cycles. In this case examination of the water and carbon cycles provides the clue.
The total volume of ice is a good measure since it requires a phase change to become liguid water. Well considering the NASA data and from other sites, it clear that the total global volume of sea ice has shown a significant decrease over the last 30 years. Since a sample mean shows a high degree of accuracy when you have 30 data points, it is very reasonable to conclude that the total volume of sea ice in the Artic is on the decline.
You have cited some polls that show you were correct in your statement regarding public attitudes towards GW. However, the Gallup poll I cited notes that political affiliation causes a significant variation in the results. If you polled democrats it shows roughly 80 percent believe the GW is accurately addressed by the media, while GOP supporters have exactly the opposite view.
I would add that political affiliation in addition to how the question is asked has a lot to do with an individuals attitude towards GW.
Based on that fact alone I would believe Gallup before I would believe the Rasmussen poll.
As far as being suckered, do you still believe the conservative press, the scientists who were bought out by conservatives and the conservative politicians?
So where are you getting your numbers?
Posted by the74blaster at 4:41 PM
Brits in a poll think picking up their dog droppings as more important the GW.
"A new Rasmussen poll shows a sudden shift in views on global warming. Last year, 47% blamed humans for global warming, while 34% said it was long-term planetary trends. This year 34% said global warming was caused by humans and 48% blamed the planet."
It's all in how the question is asked.
I couldn't find the "Current" one i saw yesterday and this one is from 2007 when MORE people believed.
"Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.
Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."
The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results."
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=b35c36a3-802a-23ad-46ec-6880767e7966
It all fits
Langmuir's Laws of bad science
1 .The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause. (TRACE GAS CO2)
2. The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the low level of significance of the results. (0.6 DEG C OVER 100 YEARS OF WHICH MOST IS GONE)
3. There are claims of great accuracy. (JUST LISTEN TO ANY SELF LOATHING AGW SUPPORTER)
4. Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested. (MAGICAL AS YET UNKNOWN FORCING ISSUES)
5. Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment. (JUST LISTEN TO AL GORE)
6. The ratio of supporters to critics rises to somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to zero.
(WE ARE SEEING THAT NOW)
Don't feel bad everyone get's suckerd in to at least one con job. It's the band wagon peer pressure effect.
Even Americans in a recent poll 4/18/09 only about a third believe in AGW 48% disbelieve. a complete swap from a year ago, so bye bye.
Posted by louiville2 at 8:41 AM : Apr 21, 2009
Do you care to mention these studies?
Also what poll are you refering to? According to Gallup 57% believe that GW is correctly potrayed in the news or under estimated. Only 41% take the position that GW is being exaggerated.
So where are you getting your numbers?
The question is cash enough of a motivating factor for someone to intentionally bias their test results to achieve a wrong conclusion? The answer for this question is obviously yes.
However, this leads to another question of who stands to lose the most if these regulations are enforced?
The scientists wanting more money to conduct research are going to benefit from a government grant, but what does the scientist working in the private sector gain?
If you consider the potential economic impact of regulations, I would think the oil companies have enough funds to find scientists who would dispute the GW findings and write what the oil companies want them to say.
Considering the size of the CEO bonuses, I would expect a large corporation to reward their scientists with a very large gift if they can effectively dispute the finds that are driving regulations.
After all, Cash is king.
All you need to do is look at how clear plastic used for bottled water containers was approved by the FDA, even though it has been found to be a carcinogen by Canadians.
All it took was a $ 5,000,000 gift to a certain government official working inside the FDA.
Posted by the74blaster at 7:15 AM
\Do yourself a favor look up all those alledged "thousands of scientists" by name willing to go one the record that AGW is real. Not organizations (which are run by plutocrats) but real John/Jane Doe's in climatology. Then compair that number to those scientists who ether dissmiss AGW or state their is not enough evidence to prove AGW.
BTW in study after study nay sayers out number proponents about 2-3 to 1.
Even Americans in a recent poll 4/18/09 only about a third believe in AGW 48% disbelieve. a complete swap from a year ago, so bye bye.
See this article on that ever in the news "Wilkins ice shelf ".
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/17/the-antarctic-wilkins-ice-shelf-collapse-media-recycles-photos-and-storylines-from-previous-years/
Posted by louiville2 at 1:15 PM : Apr 20, 2009
Yeah, I just checked it out. However, if we assume cash is the motivating factor for the scientists who are championing the GW debate, you need to consider it both ways.
The question is cash enough of a motivating factor for someone to intentionally bias their test results to achieve a wrong conclusion? The answer for this question is obviously yes.
However, this leads to another question of who stands to lose the most if these regulations are enforced?
The scientists wanting more money to conduct research are going to benefit from a government grant, but what does the scientist working in the private sector gain?
If you consider the potential economic impact of regulations, I would think the oil companies have enough funds to find scientists who would dispute the GW findings and write what the oil companies want them to say.
Considering the size of the CEO bonuses, I would expect a large corporation to reward their scientists with a very large gift if they can effectively dispute the finds that are driving regulations.
After all, Cash is king.
All you need to do is look at how clear plastic used for bottled water containers was approved by the FDA, even though it has been found to be a carcinogen by Canadians.
All it took was a $ 5,000,000 gift to a certain government official working inside the FDA.
It was revealed that our Oceans, Rivers, Creeks, Marshes, Lakes are or have maxed out on CO2. Imagine that. Pretty soon we'll be seeing Charlie Tuna floating on the surface along with the millions, if not trillions, of our aquatic friends. That's a stunning revelation from the peanut gallery.
An according to whose doing the studies, and whose paying them these Einsteins of Our Time Scientists have come up with the astronomical figure of preposterous amounts of ice in Greenland, no less. The horror of it all is that when ICE Melts it has the potential to raise the global sea levels, or is it ocean levels about .5mm. Thats pretty scary all right. Considering these kooks that are so full of ..it would go down to the sea today and take a crap at the same time it would probably kill all the fish and we would have a Tsunami the likes of which we haven't seen before. But that's Show Biz for them & The Madigore Investment Company.
The results get even more dramatic as Henny Penny gets the peanut gallery into it. With the Arctic Sea warming up why the dawning of this UnABIASED STUDY by Warwick Vincent. Is that this catastrophic event has been moved up from 20 to 30 years to just 2 years because of recent donations from those supporting GW. That's the rest of the story.
Must give credit where it is due. If it wasn't for the Tanaka - Kyoto Plan we would be afraid to venture outside. Now I can go around singing - Is it raining at your house - even when the sun shines. Now lets forget whose blowing who and move on to Gay Rights. So Sad!
You obviously are, but then you have heard that retort before haven't you.
But of course the choosing of that nom-de-plume encourages such an answer, particuarly when your posts prove the opposite to your posting name.
Posted by louiville2
Hey, louiville2,
How's your sister? Did they ever figure out how to get your mutual child talking and responding to external stimuli? I hope so; that way you'll be able to teach it everything you know about science.
Your might find the results are very close to what the majority of scientists are reporting.
Posted by the74blaster at 10:58 AM
I already know the root cause for the confusion $$$$$.
See this article on that ever in the news "Wilkins ice shelf ".
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/17/the-antarctic-wilkins-ice-shelf-collapse-media-recycles-photos-and-storylines-from-previous-years/