EPA Closer to Regulating Greenhouse Gases - Technology Review

EPA Closer to Regulating Greenhouse Gases

A new finding is intended to spur action at the Copenhagen climate change conference.

Kevin Bullis 12/07/2009

13 Comments

On the first day of the Copenhagen climate change conference the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has found that greenhouse gases constitute a threat to human health--a prerequisite for the agency to start regulating the gases.

The timing of the announcement is intended to boost efforts to reach a climate change agreement at the conference. Many countries have criticized the lack of action on climate change from the U.S., but now U.S. negotiators have an argument that their country is taking greenhouse gases seriously. If Congress fails to legislate for greenhouse gas emissions reductions, the EPA will step in.

"Today's action is a step towards enduring, pragmatic solutions to the enormous challenge of climate change," EPA administrator Lisa Jackson said (according to a copy of her speech). "It also means that we arrive at the climate talks in Copenhagen with a clear demonstration of our commitment to facing this global challenge. We hope that today's announcement serves as another incentive for far-reaching accords in our meetings this week."

World's Largest Wind Farm New Ways to Make Renewable Diesel Fuel

212 Comments

798 Days Ago
12/08/2009

Bureaucrats

Congress is hazardous to our health, and DC should be shut down. Only a bureaucrat would claim a life-essential gas is dangerous to life. CO2 has declined 94% since animals started roaming Earth, and if it dropped to 150ppm, nearly all plants and animals would perish. So what does the EPA do, it buys into taxing propaganda that carbon will fund government. This is all a game of control.

VOTE OUT the PROGRESSIVES in 2010. We MUST take back control of government, AND this time, we must stay true to conservative, minimalist government roots.

2 Comments

798 Days Ago
12/08/2009

Re: Bureaucrats

Nothing is more essential to life than water. This fact does not make floods less deadly and harmful.

8 Comments

798 Days Ago
12/08/2009

Re: Bureaucrats

I don’t think anyone is claiming that natural cycles of CO2 are dangerous to life. The concerns are the effects of burning billions of years of stored carbon in a hundred year period. What is amazing to me are all the externalities associated with the burning of carbon that most people don’t even realize. One example is that my pregnant wife can not eat certain types of fish due to the high level of mercury contamination. In my opinion a lot more needs to be done to reduce pollution levels and we cannot rely on the government alone to accomplish this.

212 Comments

798 Days Ago
12/08/2009

The EPA now is taking control over ALL perenial and seasonal streams, wetlands, and puddles (with the Corps of Engineers).

Soon the EPA will claim jusrisdiction over our food supply. It will start controliing livestock, and will attempt to minimize meat consumption.

Soon it will start limiting pets. An Obamamite already has said Americans need to wean themselves from having pets - "dogs are like SUVs, and cats are like VWs"

House sizes will be limited. The clothes you wear could be vulnerable to regulation. Where you live will require a government determination. Just read Czars Sunstein and Holdren, and you'll know what lies ahead.

125 Comments

792 Days Ago
12/14/2009

Re: Next Steps

Soon the human population will expand to 9 billion. With the increasing industrialization of developing nations, many important resources will become scare. The desperate desire to maintain economic prosperity will cause incredible damage to the ecosystem in order to extract the remaining resources. There will be wars and starvation. The quality of life in industrialized nations will plummet to the level of developing nations. The population will drop somewhat to a level that is just barely sustainable. As the damage continues, that level will become lower. The world will not be a nice place to live for a long, long time.

You should have the right to abuse your environment anyway you want without the interference of any sort of regulation. Chop down every tree, drain every pond and swap, and tear up the terrain to dig out the coal, oil and minerals and then pave it over with roads, shopping centers, more houses and parking lots. Corresponding to you there are another 20 people in the world right now wanting the same things you already have. Perhaps you are young and will get to see all this.

98 Comments

798 Days Ago
12/08/2009

Hacked e-mails, political power, billions of dollars, water vapor, effects of sun, and just a wish to get off oil: science?

36 Comments

798 Days Ago
12/08/2009

In case all the warming alarmists, politicians and middle men in the proposed carbon scam have missed it the answer is in front of us! A 50-60 year supply of natural gas is now available and will reduce mercury by 100%, nitrous by 99%, sulfur by 33% if you are interested in real pollutants. If you are still hung up on the "evil" CO2 it will reduce that by 40% as well (I don't know how anyone can take CO2 seriously after the last few weeks).

click here...

130 Comments

798 Days Ago
12/08/2009

Re: Shale gas?

"I don't know how anyone can take CO2 seriously after the last few weeks"

Some call it faith; I call it intellectual dishonesty.

130 Comments

798 Days Ago
12/08/2009

Bound for the courts

It should be interesting to see the vaporware of "global warming" hackery put up against the very real costs of the regulations that the EPA may attempt to enact. This action virtually guarantees that the so-called "science" of AGW will be rightfully put on trial. It's just too bad the criminal fraud has yet to be; but here's hoping it is, and that those responsible for it pay an appropriate price.

125 Comments

792 Days Ago
12/14/2009

Re: Bound for the courts

Yes AGW and the scientist who discovered it may very well be put on trial, not unlike Galileo when he claimed that the earth was not the center of the universe. The heresy now however is not declared by the church but by the fossil fuel industry.

13 Comments

792 Days Ago
12/14/2009

Re: Bound for the courts

wow, just where did you climate deniers get your education, from a cheerios box? Was it a coupon or a toy. You talk about science as if you know nothing about it. It would be nice to keep the discussion to science and new technology that doesn't cause the deaths of 60,000 to 100,000 American citizens every year as is the case with coal. How patriotic is it to want those people to keep dying? Then add in scores of thousands more dead Moms, Dads, and Kids from burning gasoline and diesel. We need solutions to all these deaths, and they don't come from oil, or coal, or depleting the soil, or nuclear reactors that simply bankrupt and physically threaten a thousand future generations. Political parroting for oil and coal driven political positions, only continues the unspeakable killing of our own people for profit. We can do better than fossil fuels and we can do better than nuclear. Just to cart ourselves and our Walmart goods around we have fought a constant battle in the mideast ,, both directly and through proxies, since WW1. Clean energy is energy that doesn't kill us, and has no hidden costs in life or costs.

130 Comments

792 Days Ago
12/14/2009

Re: Bound for the courts

I find nothing scientific about your response, so I'm afraid your plea to "keep it to science" falls on deaf ears. This article is about policy, and my comment is therefore policy related.

It doesn't take a genius to recognize the observable fact that global average temperature has trended down since 1998 while CO2 emissions have continued to climb, adding to the record amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. These two irrefutable facts simply do not support AGW theory, and the recent discovery of fraud by the core IPCC scientists further erodes the theory's already shaky underpinnings.

No amount of wishful thinking and whining accompanied with fanciful death tolls and falling polar bears changes these facts. AGW is at best junk science and at worst outright fraud, and the point of attempting reasoned discussion with its adherents is passed. It may now be judged in the sunlight of truth, by the public and by the courts. I watch with anticipation.

67 Comments

792 Days Ago
12/14/2009

yeah its sad

that beauracrats may be regulating CO2 emissions, but when Congress fails to act, what choice do they have? Deniers will keep denying till the cows come home, no matter how much science you offer them. No matter if you tell them that "climategate" has changed nothing about the basic scientific conclusions. They will continue to pour scorn on the facts. Just read some of the nonsense that's been posted just on this page.

Bio

Kevin Bullis is Technology Review’s energy editor.

Subscribe to the Potential Energy RSS Feed

click here...

Recent Posts From
Potential Energy

The Energy Use of New York City's Buildings, Visualized

Amyris Gives Up Making Biofuels: Update

GM Reveals Dismal Volt Sales in January

Natural Gas: The Next Presidential Transportation Fad

Blog Topics

amyris biochemicals biofuels data analysis energy energy efficiency investors mascoma

click here...

Facebook

click here...