EPA To Rule Greenhouse Gases a Danger, Open Door for Regulation
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced today that the EPA would regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. (image: nationalpost.com)
This afternoon, the Environmental Protection Agency released a landmark statement concerning climate change and the impact of carbon emissions on the environment. Signaling a major shift in the US stance on the issue brought about by the Obama administration, the statement, delivered by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, declared officially that: “the threat [of climate change] is real … Polar ice caps crumbling into the oceans, changing migratory patterns of animals and broader ranges for deadly diseases, historic droughts, more powerful storms, and disappearing coastlines.”
The agency has released an endangerment finding that declares greenhouse gases a threat to public and environmental health. As to the US government response to this crisis, she announced that “there are no more excuses for delay,” perhaps trying to sway the Senate’s recent debate about stripping funding for environmental protection, or prodding it into action on the climate bill. Said Jackson:
[The EPA] is now authorized and obligated to take reasonable efforts to reduce greenhouse pollutants under the Clean Air Act. This long-overdue finding cements 2009’s place in history as the year when the United States Government began seriously addressing the challenge of greenhouse gas pollution and seizing the opportunity of clean-energy reform. In less than 11 months, we have done more to promote clean energy and prevent climate change than happened in the last eight years.
The EPA’s plans for greenhouse gas abatement include a national reporting system for greenhouse gas emissions, which has already been established and will be fully operational by 2011. The system will require that large emitters submit publicly available information that allows for more effective tracking of greenhouse gases, as well as show where opportunities exist to increase efficiency through new technologies or products. They will also be required to use the best available greenhouse gas limiting technologies in any new construction or expansion. Jackson said the finding also lays a legal foundation for the proposed clean cars program.
While it is unlikely that any amount of pressure from the EPA would push climate legislation through Congress while health care reform is still in debate, the EPA finding will give President Obama a much stronger position going into the UN Climate Change Talks in Copenhagen this week. The Wall Street Journal quotes US lead negotiator James Pershing saying that “the US is currently responsible for one-fifth of global emissions”, so while a US commitment to these issues won’t solve a global problem, it certainly accomplishes a sizeable portion of the goal.
The Wall Street Journal also addresses the concerns of the business community in regards to the extra costs that widespread carbon monitoring may entail. The EPA intends to “tailor” Clean Air Act regulations to first target the aforementioned large emitters of greenhouse gases—those who release more than 25,000 tons of gases per year—and then further amend the rules in five years. This tailoring may have legal ramifications, as it would open the EPA up to challenges from environmentalists who want to see a more expanded program, or from business who want to halt the process altogether. As we have reported previously, there may be some small price increases to businesses and consumers as new technologies come online, but in the long-run, lower emissions and lower demand for carbon-intensive fuels such as oil and natural gas will drive down prices, which seems like a win–win situation for all.
Energy Consultants: Fossil Fuel Use to Change Little by 2034 | HeatingOil.com says: says:
[...] down in the Senate, which would cap carbon emissions at 17 percent below 2005 levels, and the EPA’s December endangerment finding regarding greenhouse gases could do much to alter the costs of supplying power and heat with fossil fuels in a future much [...]
MA Special Election Could Have Huge Effect on Climate Legislation | HeatingOil.com says: says:
[...] her office’s lawsuit against the EPA that resulted in last year’s declaration by the EPA that greenhouse gases are a public health hazard. If elected, Coakley will throw her support behind the impending climate change [...]
Energy CFOs Say Legislation is More Important Than Demand | HeatingOil.com says: says:
[...] made a big move in early December, declaring greenhouse gases a public health hazard, and therefore opening them up to regulation by the agency. In the Senate, climate change legislation is currently in the works that would place a cap on [...]
EPA Regulation of Greenhouse Gases Challenged by Beef Industry | HeatingOil.com says: says:
[...] Agency’s (EPA) December announcement that it intends to regulate emissions greenhouse gases has received its first official challenge from special interests. Perhaps surprising to some, the challenge has not come from the usual or more predicable suspects [...]
Copenhagen Day 11: U.S. Makes Financing Pledge for Poor Nations, China Responds Favorably, Some Hope in the Talks Restored | HeatingOil.com says: says:
[...] have a specific aid package for poor nations. What he will carry into Copenhagen tomorrow is the EPA’s decision that greenhouse gases are a public health hazard, and thus subject to regulations, as well as some solid energy policy in place here at home. In [...]
Copenhagen Day 8: Obama’s Catch-22, Weekend Protests, and A U.S. Pledge For Clean Energy Technology | HeatingOil.com says: says:
[...] finds himself heading into Copenhagen with his hands seemingly tied. While he could use the recent EPA ruling to regulate the country’s emissions, the president has made it clear he favors a “messy [...]
EPA to Investigate Air Pollution from Oil and Gas Drilling | HeatingOil.com says: says:
[...] actions showing hostility to fossil fuels. For example, the EPA’s declaration that greenhouse gases are a threat to the environment and health opens the door to regulations affecting oil and gas production. The administration excluded [...]
US Industry Reacts to EPA Finding on Greenhouse Gases | HeatingOil.com says: says:
[...] The Environmental Protection Agency’s announcement that it will begin regulating greenhouse gases—should the Senate fail to pass climate change legislation—has predictably attracted the ire of American industry. On Monday, HeatingOil.com reported that the EPA declared greenhouse gases to be a threat to public and environmental health. [...]
Copenhagen Day 2: Outrage From Developing Nations, The Warmest Decade on Record, and the Effects of the EPA Decision | HeatingOil.com says: says:
[...] to the recent U.S. decision concerning the regulatory power of the Environmental Protection Agency. As HeatingOil.com reported Monday, the EPA officially declared greenhouse gas emissions a threat to public and environmental health, [...]
Josh Garrett says: says:
Congratulations, Mike, you are clearly gifted in the art of parroting anti-climate change dogma. Perhaps if you look into some specific solutions instead of making vague criticisms of government action to mitigate climate change, you might learn a few things. I can’t speak for Kristin personally, but I can respond to some of your concerns:
-Anthropogenic global warming exists. Hundreds of studies conducted by thousands of scientists around the world support this conclusion. Contrary to what’s been reported by some media outlets, the recent controversy sparked by illegally-obtained emails proved nothing more than the fact that a handful of those scientists were emotionally invested in their work.
-You’re right, demand for carbon-based fuels will be around for a long time to come. But this does not mean we should give up on cleaner, safer, renewable energy sources altogether. And yes, there may be a time in the not-too-distant future when people will charge their car batteries with a backyard wind turbine. It may be a joke to you, but clean, free electricity from wind sounds great to me.
-To your suggestion that nuclear energy is the best kind of energy “progress,” I suggest you take a look at this post, which describes a recent study that found that renewable energy is a better long-term investment than nuclear, as nuclear power would be more expensive, and take longer to implement on a large scale
I have to throw my support behind Kristin’s conclusion: slowing climate change and lowering long-term energy prices do seem like a win-win. Over the next decade or so, we’ll see if what seems to be a win-win actually is.
Mike A says: says:
“Which SEEMS like a win–win situation for all” is the most inconclusive, ignorant, and pathetic statement to a conclusion of an article regarding a massive tax on everything we do as well as a devastating blow to any possible recovery in the economy given the unknown limits the “EPA,” not even CONGRESS, is planning on burdening on US businesses… Not to mention there is still no evidence to prove that man made anthropogenic global warming exists and this ploy to give Obama an Ace in his pocket when visiting Copenhagen to redistribute wealth should be enough to make you sick. Kristen, there will always be a demand for “carbon-intensive” fuels; how do you think you will charge the battery for your Prius, with a windmill in your backyard? Maybe if we promoted progress instead of regression we could foster the technologies that produce massive amounts of energy without carbon i.e. nuclear like the so many other countries are doing around the world. Wake up America!!!