EPA Will Begin Regulating Industrial Global Warming Pollution In March, 2010
EPA Will Begin Regulating Industrial Global Warming Pollution In March, 2010
Appearing at a climate summit in Los Angeles today, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson will announce the administration’s plan to regulate industrial global warming pollution, with or without the support of Congress. In May, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed global warming standards for motor vehicles, applauded by the auto industry. Under the rules of the Clean Air Act, when these regulations go into effect in March 2010, all major greenhouse gas polluters — from coal-fired power plants and oil refiners to methane-emitting landfills — are automatically subject to regulation:
Under EPA’s current interpretation of PSD [Prevention of Significant Deterioration] and title V applicability requirements, promulgation of this motor vehicle rule will trigger the applicability of PSD and title V requirements for stationary sources that emit GHGs.
Today’s proposed rule — which allows public comment until December — technically is a “tailoring rule” to limit regulation of global warming pollution to emitters of 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year, instead of the automatic statutory amount of 250 tons. This 250-ton standard would cover about four million businesses and homes — the “glorious mess” President Bush used as an excuse for his inaction. The EPA plans to raise the pollution limit to 25,000 tons, so that only 14,000 industrial pollution sources nationwide would be covered by the regulations, 11,000 of which are currently covered by the Clean Air Act permitting requirements already. Each stationary source covered would be required to apply for a title V operating permit, and all new sources would require a new source review permit.
Today’s announcement by the EPA comes hours after the introduction of legislation to limit global warming pollution by Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) this morning, two-and-a-half years after the U.S. Supreme Court mandated action on global warming pollution, and 17 years after the United States ratified the Rio de Janeiro climate treaty, pledging to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”
12 Responses to “EPA Will Begin Regulating Industrial Global Warming Pollution In March, 2010”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
Virtually all of the money spent on research is on predicted effects, not causes. Global doomers justify the existence AGWing by rationalizing it to “who is saying it” and not “what is being said”. This avoids real debate of this 23 year old CO2 theory making it a faith based self fulfilling prophecy. Is AGW another WMD? Scientists? Don’t sanctify a profession that apparently polluted our planet with their evil chemicals in the first place. Global warming looks as silly as Carl Sagon predicting a nuclear winter from the first gulf war oil fires. So after 23 years of waiting for this crisis to arrive, a scientist seems about as credible as a lap dancer. Let’s call Kyoto, Y2Kyoto?
September 30th, 2009 at 5:13 pmNotice how the waterhole of facts we all drink from, the Internet, is just an open sewer of untreated information. Pick an opinion. Pick a winner every time. Truth becomes a foggy haze in this science fiction before us called climate change. History will call it witch burning.
Melting ice doesn’t prove what caused it so by taking a snapshot in time and ignoring the history of the earth, these global doomers can then make a grim case for the early demise of the planet and even fool themselves into believing it in the process. Then it’s off to scare the kids by denying them futures: “We have to save the planet kids!”
The UN has allowed Carbon Trading to trump 3rd world education, clean water and starvation rescue.
IPCC “90% sure”
IPCC Endorse the unscientific “precaution” policy.
IPCC Endorse the “correlation” policy.
IPCC Failed predictions for 23 years.
IPCC Endorse that La Nina “delayed” global warming.
IPCC Endorse the “It’s too late now” policy. (Too late? Why can’t we stop something we apparently started?)
Come on you waskly radicals and rebels and activists and Liberals and Conservatives alike and let 23 years of predictions put our minds at ease so we can finally end the world’s longest emergency. Preserve, protect and respect our world, not save it from a mistake with mass hysteria more suitable for Dark Age mentality.
#1: Lol. You’re silly.
I bet you like tin foil hats.
September 30th, 2009 at 5:37 pmWhat a stupid comment by Meme Mine. It reaches a new level of troll bait. As an example…
“Virtually all of the money spent on research is on predicted effects, not causes. ”
What?????
Or another one..
“Melting ice doesn’t prove what caused it so by taking a snapshot in time and ignoring the history of the earth, these global doomers can then make a grim case for the early demise of the planet and even fool themselves into believing it in the process.”
No arguments, no facts. Just a series of nonsense statements strung together. The author clearly has no idea how Scientific theory works. “..23 years of predictions…
If the author drives a car, watches TV, uses a computer (posting such comments) or takes any kind of medicine, then they have benefited from real scientific process, which also is weighing in on global warming.
Wishing away Facts rarely works and just make you look like a dope.
September 30th, 2009 at 6:03 pmsluggo says; Wishing away Facts rarely works and just make you look like a dope. Wish away this fact, you big dope; SUNSPOTS
September 30th, 2009 at 7:27 pmsluggo says; Wishing away Facts rarely works and just make you look like a dope. Wish away this fact, you big dope; SUNSPOTS http://www.aip.org/pnu/2003/split/642-2.html
September 30th, 2009 at 7:38 pmWhere are the facts? Where is the IPCC’s conclusive report? What are NASA’s solar activity models predicting? Why are temps. holding steady while CO2 rises?
September 30th, 2009 at 8:25 pmI think this is an excuse for a government take over just like every so-called “crises” we’ve been subjected to in the last year. Financial crises,stimulus crises,budget crises,health care crises, global warming crises, national debt crises, …
How many times can you cry wolf? When environmentalists admit to exagerating claims and justify lies to “increase awareness” where is their credibility?
I’m tired of lies. I value freedom-even the freedom to do unwise things. I will not be bullied by political correctness or the race card or any other name-calling. Enough! Leave us alone.
This is great news. It’s time the rest of the country leaves the deniers behind and moves on with fixing the problem.
I look at it this way. If the climate change deniers are wrong, then we are all royally scr*wed. Why play Russian Roulette with the life support systems we need for society>
September 30th, 2009 at 9:56 pmGood move..
Its time to face the fact that the current idea of economy is based on omitting the cost for nature , the greatest economy of all, is a bad deal and its time now to directly deal with that.
October 1st, 2009 at 4:28 amWe just have to make things better by designing smarter and not wasteful . adopting Cradle to cradle thinking and energy efficiency will be the best ways to do it . lets get some rulings here in legislation and whip it( =AGW)
If Congress won’t do it, the EPA will using its existing Clean Air Act authority (as the Supreme Court indicated they should several years ago) to start ratcheting back Greenhouse Gas Pollutants which are known threats to human health and the environment. The science is there, the basis for the decision in April to list CO2, Methane, N20, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride as greenhouse gas pollutants.
Sustainability requires preserving the planet that we depend on for all these “free” services like clean air, water to drink and steady sea levels.
What I find really disingeneous is the latest stance of the US Chamber saying that global controls are needed before they’ll buy in. Next they’ll be saying they want one world government, the bane of all the tinhat wingnuts.
October 1st, 2009 at 9:24 amFor all you climate changers out there here is a quick quiz.
Q: What makes up 90% of all global warming gases?
A: Water (H2O)
Q: When you combust natural gas in a power plant how much water do you get in comparison to CO2?
A: You get twice as much water. (CH4 + 2O2 –> CO2 + 2H2O)
Q: Why don’t we regulate the emissions of water?
A: ?????
I admit that CO2 emissions do contribute some amount to the total quantity Greenhouse gases but no one has proven how much that will effect the climate if at all. Futhermore using the logic applied by the global climate change alarmist we should be regulating the emissions of water.
Also don’t fart as Methane is 8 times more effective as a green house gas than CO2.
October 1st, 2009 at 9:48 amOh, hey, BV Engineer, it looks like don’t know the answer to the third question. Let me help you out:
Q: Why don’t we regulate the emissions of water?
A: Because water vapor levels are driven by natural processes, and human activities don’t meaningfully affect this balance. See, there are these things called oceans and clouds and rivers and plants, which are much more meaningful to water vapor balance than the burning of fossil fuels. The same, unfortunately, can not be said for CO2. Although the ocean does buffer a massive amount of carbon dioxide, it’s not enough to keep the level in the atmosphere from steadily rising. Unfortunately, once in the atmosphere, CO2 has a halflife of thousands of years.
On a related note, methane is actually 21 times more potent than CO2, which is part of the reason that beef production is such a problem.
Now a question for you: why are climate change deniers such fucking imbeciles? Do they really think that, for example, scientists are too dumb to know about the water vapor cycle? Steven Chu has a Nobel Prize, for crying out loud. You’re just a mouth breather with a keyboard.
October 1st, 2009 at 8:20 pmRegulating GHGs with PSD and TV, even after “tailoring”, will be a huge mess. It will hinder companies from undertaking neccesary improvements and expansions even if they are to increase efficiency. Example: a boiler (coal, oil, ng, biomass, whatever) wants to make an upgrade to allow it to operate more effiecienly (ie more heat/electricity per unit of fuel). With this rule the company would be requried to jump through an additional series of hoops to get the project permitted. SImilar situatiuons already occure with respect to the other pollutants already regulated under PSD/TV. Also, the EPA has not provided any guidance on how the required PSD reviews are to be conducted.
October 6th, 2009 at 1:08 pm