December 9, 2009 12:04 PM

EPA Vows Common Sense on Carbon Emissions

(CBS/AP)  The United States for the first time outlined a dual path Wednesday toward cutting greenhouse gases that would involve both the Obama administration and Congress.

Speaking at a U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson described the EPA's decision that greenhouse gases should be regulated as complementary to U.S. legislation — not an effort to supplant the work of Congress.

"This is not an either/or moment. This is a both/and moment," she told more than 100 people who packed a U.S. meeting room in the conference center. Negotiators at the 192-nation U.N. conference are also working to bridge the chasm between rich and poor countries over how to share the burden of fighting climate change.

The EPA on Monday gave President Barack Obama a new way to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions when it determined that scientific evidence clearly shows they are , and that the pollutants — mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels — should be regulated under the Clean Air Act. That means the EPA could regulate those gases without the approval of Congress.

The EPA decision was welcomed by other nations in Copenhagen that have called on the U.S. to boost its efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

The full Senate has yet to take up legislation that cleared its environment committee and calls for greenhouse gases to be cut by 20 percent by 2020, a target that was scaled back to 17 percent in the House after opposition from coal-state Democrats.

"We need legislation" to remove any uncertainty that businesses might have, Jackson added. "The reason for legislation is to take that question out of their minds. ... We will work closely with our Congress to pass legislation to lower our greenhouse gases more than 80 percent by 2050."

Jackson said the U.S. would take "reasonable efforts" and also "meaningful, common- sense steps" to cut emissions, but didn't provide specifics.

More Climate Coverage:

"Very Likely" the Warmest Decade on Record
Greenland: Glaciers Melt, Economy Heats Up
Physicists Unfazed by Climate Gate
EPA: Greenhouse Gases Endanger Public
Climate Conference Puts Heat on U.S.
"Climate Gate" Casts Cloud over Copehnagen
Tempers Flare in Climate Flap

U.S. business groups have strongly argued against tackling global warming through the Clean Air Act, saying it is less flexible and more costly than the cap-and-trade legislation being considered by Congress. Any regulations from the EPA are certain to spawn lawsuits and a lengthy legal fights.

Getting an agreement that satisfies both rich and poor nations , said Todd Stern, the top U.S. climate envoy. "But I think an agreement is there to be had if we do this right," he added.

Lumumba Di-Aping of Sudan, the head of the 135-nation bloc of developing countries, said the $10 billion a year that has been proposed to help poor nations fight climate change paled in comparison to the more than $1 trillion already spent to rescue financial institutions.

"If this is the greatest risk that humanity faces, then how do you explain $10 billion?" he said. "Ten billion will not buy developing countries' citizens enough coffins."

Small island nations, poor countries and those seeking money from the developed world to preserve their tropical forests were among those upset over competing draft texts attributed to Denmark and China outlining proposed outcomes for the historic summit, which runs through Dec. 18. China has recently overtaken the U.S. as the world's top greenhouse gas emitter.

Some of the poorest nations feared they would bear too much of the burden to curb greenhouse gases. They are seeking billions of dollars in aid from the wealthy countries to deal with climate change, which melts glaciers that raise sea levels worldwide, turns some regions drier and threatens food production.

Diplomats from developing countries and climate activists complained the Danish hosts pre-empted the negotiations with their draft proposal, which would allow rich countries to cut fewer emissions while poorer nations would face tougher limits on greenhouse gases and more conditions on getting funds.

"When a process is flawed, then the outcome is flawed," Raman Mehta, ActionAid's program manager in India, said of the Danish proposal. "If developing countries don't have a concrete indication of the scale of finances, then you don't get a deal — and even if you do, it's a bad deal."

It focuses "on pleasing the rich and powerful countries rather than serving the majority of states who are demanding a fair and ambitious solution," said Kim Carstensen of the environmental group WWF.

A sketchy counterproposal attributed to China would extend the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which required 37 industrial nations to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for global warming by an average 5 percent by 2012, compared with 1990 levels.

The Chinese text would incorporate specific new, deeper targets for the industrialized world for a further five to eight years. However, developing countries including China would be covered by a separate agreement that encourages taking action to control emissions but not in the same legally binding way.

Poorer nations believe the two-track approach would best preserve the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities" recognized by the Kyoto treaty.

The U.N.'s weather agency unveiled data Tuesday showing that this decade is on track to become the hottest since records began in 1850, with 2009 the fifth-warmest year ever. The second warmest decade was the 1990s.

Only the United States and Canada experienced cooler conditions than average, the World Meteorological Organization said, though Alaska had the second-warmest July on record.

Also on Wednesday, China strongly protested a blunder that prevented a top diplomat from entering the vast Bella Center where the U.N. conference is being held.

Su Wei, the director general of China's climate change negotiation team, told the meeting he was "extremely unhappy" that a Chinese minister was barred from entry three days in a row.

Su called the incident "unacceptable" and expressed anger that U.N. climate chief Yvo de Boer was not informed. De Boer pledged to investigate and "make sure it doesn't happen again."

© 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Add a Comment See all 79 Comments
by troutfishyman December 9, 2009 5:21 PM EST
by thesevenveils December 9, 2009 4:22 PM EST

I applaud the thought, but EPA, baby steps, baby steps. Considering EPA has done very little to clean up rivers and streams, nor stopped acid rain, much less cities chocking in smog. Baby steps EPA, baby steps.


You could not be more wrong. The EPA has been hugely successful in improving water and air quality in this country. Ironic that the agency was created by a Republican president, yet the GOP has been trying to dismantle the agency every since then!!
Reply to this comment
by louiville35 December 9, 2009 6:50 PM EST
Right since it was a republican who created the EPA, Endangered Species Act, General Authorities Act.................. Other Republicans established the National Parks, National Forest, Antiquities Act, The Alaska Lands Act, motor vehicle fuel efficiency (CAFE) standards, The Montreal Protocol........

Republicans on average have more energy efficient homes as well, just look at Al Gore vs George W Bush. Republicans do on their own democrats wait and whine until someone does it for them.

So don't believe all that stuff trout throws out he just hates people wants the planet to himself I guess.
by starving1968-1 December 9, 2009 5:20 PM EST
by Empire-George December 9, 2009 4:14 PM EST





Hey Joe: two links for you from your buddy hungry1968, and PROOF of what I was telling you about Fox News and Rasmussen polls:

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/23/fox-pie-chart/

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/08/fox-poll-120/
Reply to this comment
by troutfishyman December 9, 2009 5:14 PM EST
by Empire-George December 9, 2009 4:14 PM EST
by starving1968-1 December 9, 2009 1:45 PM EST

According to the framers of the Constitution, in this case, James Madison.....the general welfare, is not some unlimited phrase to apply to anything you can think of, related to general welfare...



Instead of posting old quotes by Madison, try referring to SCOTUS rulings on this matter.
Reply to this comment
by thesevenveils December 9, 2009 4:22 PM EST
his is a joke, coming from the EPA. With all the heavy metals, carcinogens and poisons released without regulation by power plants and industry, the EPA is going to aim to curb something even bigger?

I applaud the thought, but EPA, baby steps, baby steps. Considering EPA has done very little to clean up rivers and streams, nor stopped acid rain, much less cities chocking in smog. Baby steps EPA, baby steps.
pollutants
Reply to this comment
by Empire-George December 9, 2009 4:14 PM EST
by starving1968-1 December 9, 2009 1:45 PM EST

According to the framers of the Constitution, in this case, James Madison.....the general welfare, is not some unlimited phrase to apply to anything you can think of, related to general welfare

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress. ... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America." --James Madison
Reply to this comment
by starving1968-1 December 9, 2009 4:38 PM EST
Joe -- You are OBVIOUSLY unaware that the EPA DOES NOT report directly to congress. If you were aware of this fact, you wouldn't have posted the above passage from James Madison.

The EPA is not a Cabinet agency, but the Administrator is normally given cabinet rank, and is appointed by the president. The EPA enforces the laws enacted by congress, but reports to the president - just like the justice department.

Since it DOES NOT report directly to congress, it is subject to the "checks and balances" of our government.
by louiville35 December 9, 2009 5:17 PM EST
Ahhh but if regulating these emissions is not in the general welfare but is in turn as general disservice then the parties responsible of fraud and treason.

In other words if these parties make claim that it's a general welfare to limit carbon (or whatever), that in turn ruins to country to the benefit of foreign powers that is treasonous. (especially if fraud and deception was used to carry out the act) Que in the emails.

"Treason, sedition mean disloyalty or treachery to one's country or its government. Treason is any attempt to overthrow the government or impair the well-being of a state to which one owes allegiance; the crime of giving aid or comfort to the enemies of one's government. Sedition is any act, writing, speech, etc., directed unlawfully against state authority, the government, or constitution, or calculated to bring it into contempt or to incite others to hostility, ill will or disaffection; it does not amount to treason and therefore is not a capital offense."

In Dante's inferno Treason is the lowest you can go.
by louiville35 December 9, 2009 4:13 PM EST
louiville35
Wrong, that's the typical myth that has gone around.

The problem is that as the earth warms biological growth increases creating more CO2, coupled with the fact the the oceans cannot retain as much CO2 because of warming and CO2 is then released into the atmosphere, Man on the other hand has covered much of the land that would normally be producing CO2 (nematodes etc....) so the question is, what is the net CO2, is it more or less then the land would have produced had we not been here. Interestingly scientists do not know, it's only been assumed to be caused by man. What most AGW scientist point to is a rare Carbon C13 isotope that is higher in fossil fuel and and increase in the atmosphere of C13 CO2. Anyone with a bias would leap at that as glowing proof, the problem is C13 CO2 doesn't drop out of the atmosphere (not as easily absorbed by plants)at the same rate as normal CO2. So since that type of CO2 (C13) naturally tends to concentrate. In essence it proves nothing other then how eager scientist jump to conclusions.


y ubrew12 December 9, 2009 1:12 PM EST
'as the earth warms biological growth increases creating more CO2'
How can you get a biological growth increase by creating more CO2. Plants cannot increase their mass without fixing CO2 into carbohydrates and celluloses.
===============================================================================
WOW let's see now what eats the cellulose, let me think? could it be a combination of aerobic bacteria, animals.................. and what do they put out CO2.

"To determine effects of soil fauna on greenhouse gas emissions, soil inoculated with different populations of nematodes and earthworms was incubated for 15 d. Soil with greater populations of nematodes and earthworms enhanced CO2 and N2O emissions. Cumulative emission fluxes of the two gases in the treatment of greater populations of nematodes and the treatment of greater populations of nematodes and earthworms were increased by 4.3 and 5.2 times for CO2, 1.8 and 2.7 times for N2O, respectively in comparison of the nematode-killed treatment. The emission fluxes of CO2 and N2O in soil treated with greater populations of nematodes were 19% for CO2 and 21% for N2O higher than those in soil treated with lower populations of nematodes. Meanwhile, the emission fluxes of the two gases in soil treated with greater populations of nematodes and earthworms were 12% for CO2 and 27% for N2O higher than those in soil treated with lower populations of nematodes and earthworms. The two gas fluxes were significantly correlated (R2 = 0.9414; p < 0.001). Cumulative emissions of CO2 and N2O from soil treated with different populations of nematodes were positively correlated with DOC (dissolved organic carbon) concentration measured at the start of gas sampling "


Bottom line more warmth more bacteria, nematodes,..............
Reply to this comment
by jankebenzone December 9, 2009 3:57 PM EST
The four stages of global the warming alarmist downfall

#1 Believing what the media and Gore is telling them about global warming

#2 Believing the extra costs in almost everything is actually helping lessen the "carbon footprint"

#3 Believing the by now obvious cooling trend ,is still according to "experts" caused by man

#4 Finally realizing too late, that the trillions spent with no results was just a money grabbing hoax.
Reply to this comment
by Empire-George December 9, 2009 4:03 PM EST
#5 Actually believing that you can stop the climate from changing by driving a Prius and taxing carbon....stop the climate from changing !
by ubrew12 December 9, 2009 4:07 PM EST
EPA is reacting to the reality, and none too soon. They were literally FORCED to obey the Clean Air Act by the Supreme Court. This is not an Obama/Bush thing. EPA was forced by the very conservative Supreme Court to react to the reality, and this is their doing so. Like it or not, its you guys that have been drinking the Kool-aid. And its got to end.
by louiville35 December 9, 2009 3:43 PM EST
Yes King Obama and his fascists friends don't need no stinking congressmen to tell him what to do. By jimminy if he wants to panic and ruin the country that is his right as supreme overlord.

Another sign that we are no longer a republic and extremists rule this country irregardless of what the majority wants.
Reply to this comment
by starving1968-1 December 9, 2009 4:32 PM EST
The majority wants the public option, as poll, after poll, after poll has shown time and time again.

You are correct though, that the extremists on the right are trying everything they can to stop this desperately needed reform.
by louiville35 December 9, 2009 6:32 PM EST
by starving1968-1 December 9, 2009 4:32 PM EST
The majority wants the public option, as poll, after poll, after poll has shown time and time again.

You are correct though, that the extremists on the right are trying everything they can to stop this desperately needed reform.
===========================================================

And that has what to do with a few nit wit losers at EPA, who read fraudulent scientific data, deciding whats best for a nation of 300 million?

Oh and BTW if the majority of Americans really want the public option (sure sure)then in a republic we hire representative to vote for us, if they don't vote what we want then we vote them out, right? Kind of different then a few extremists grabbing power to further their own selfish destructive agenda, they call that a coup d'état.
by Brokennews December 9, 2009 3:30 PM EST
"EPA Vows Common Sense on Carbon Emissions"


Common sense? What have they been using previously?
Reply to this comment
by chrisbieber December 9, 2009 2:43 PM EST
"Common" Government sense...

common SOCIALIST doublespeak.

Government CONTROL of the means of production...they have almost legally done that....with bipartisanship and the utter obliviousness of the conditioned and now serf-like American public.

International entanglements and subjective theories......a "perfect storm" with the freedom and sovereignty of America waiting for the result of the diabolical brew being hatched in Denmark..and NYC..and London..and of course...DC.

BMW riding and leathershoed shills for government controls posters
....how typical.
Reply to this comment
See all 79 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook