1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Greenhouse Gases to be Listed as Pollutants by EPA

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by rocketsjudoka, Apr 17, 2009.

  1. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    58,168
    Likes Received:
    48,335
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30264214

    U.S. declares warming gases are health threat
    Obama administration move is aimed at prodding lawmakers to regulate

    WASHINGTON - Having received White House backing, the Environmental Protection Agency declared Friday that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are a significant threat to human health and thus will be listed as pollutants under the Clean Air Act — a policy the Bush administration rejected.

    The move could allow the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases, but it's more likely that the Obama administration will use the action to prod Congress to pass regulations around a system to cap and then trade emissions so that they are gradually lowered.

    The EPA last month sent its proposal to the White House Office of Management and Budget, which reviewed and approved it. By law, the decision includes a 60-day public comment period before being finalized.

    The EPA concluded that six greenhouse gases should be considered pollutants under the 1970 Clean Air Act, which is already used to curb emissions that cause acid rain, smog and soot.

    But its declaration does not spell out how or what to regulate. Instead, the EPA and lawmakers are expected to begin that discussion.

    White House press secretary Robert Gibbs last month said "the president has made quite clear" that he prefers to have the climate issue addressed by Congress as part of a broad, mandatory limit on heat-trapping emissions.

    Moreover, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has said her agency would not act alone and that any new regulations at the federal level would not prevent states from taking their own steps or preclude Congress from passing legislation to limit greenhouse gas emissions, something Democratic leaders on the Hill are already working on.

    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 chairman of the Senate Environment Committee, Sen. Barbara Feinstein, D-Calif., urged the EPA to use the Clean Air Act to start "cutting greenhouse gas emissions right now."

    "However," she added, "the best and most flexible way to deal with this serious problem is to enact a market based cap and trade system, which will help us make the transition to clean energy and will bring us innovation and strong economic growth."

    Potential health impacts from warming, EPA scientists said in their recommendations, include:

    longer and more severe heat waves;
    increased smog in some areas;
    dangerous flooding caused by stronger storms;
    and diseases, including malaria and dengue fever, related to flooding and warmer weather.
    Shift started with Supreme Court
    The Bush administration refused to regulate greenhouse gases as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, even though the U.S. Supreme Court in 2007 prodded the federal government to do so.

    In his first week in office, President Barack Obama directed the EPA to review a decision by the Bush administration denying California and other states the right to control auto emissions, which, along with pollution from coal-fired power plants, are a major source of greenhouse gases.

    Environmentalists praised the EPA move, but urged the administration to use the Clean Air Act until Congress comes up with a plan.

    The EPA should be required "to follow up with standards under the Clean Air Act, the nation's most effective environmental law, to curb carbon pollution from our cars, power plants and other industrial sources," said David Doniger, climate policy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

    Frank O'Donnell, director of Clean Air Watch, said he expected federal limits on "emissions from the biggest sources, including power plants and motor vehicles."

    The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other industry lobbying groups oppose using the Clean Air Act to regulate emissions.

    "It will require a huge cascade of (new clean air) permits" and halt a wide array of projects, from building coal plants to highway construction, including many at the heart of economic recovery plan, Bill Kovacs, a vice president for environmental issues at the chamber, said when the EPA's recommendations were made last month.

    Other critics have noted that the Clean Air Act regulates any stationary source — from a gas station to a power plant — that emits more than 250 tons of a pollutant a year. That would place thousands of smaller sources under onerous federal rules, those critics say.

    Supporters of stricter regulations say the Clean Air Act could be revised to exempt smaller sources and focus on large ones like power plants.

    Nations working on new treaty
    The United States is under pressure to take some action on global warming in advance of negotiations on a new international treaty in December.

    The Obama administration has vowed to step up participation, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton even has a climate envoy.

    The Bush administration refused to participate in the current treaty, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, citing a lack of participation by developing countries and harm to the U.S. economy. In the late 1990s, during the Clinton administration, the Senate balked at ratifying the agreement.
     
  2. B-Bob

    B-Bob "94-year-old self-described dreamer"
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    35,985
    Likes Received:
    36,840
    Can they arrest me when I'm having one of my non-optimal lower-GI mornings? :(
     
  3. finalsbound

    finalsbound Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2000
    Messages:
    12,333
    Likes Received:
    927
    Good...maybe they can introduce/more strongly enforce factory farm regulation.
     
  4. MadMax

    MadMax Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 1999
    Messages:
    76,683
    Likes Received:
    25,924
    Gillllly. Gilllllllllyyyyyy. did you release greenhouse gases into the environment?
     
  5. Sacudido

    Sacudido Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Messages:
    242
    Likes Received:
    142
    CO2 as a pollutant... In retaliation, the plants of the world should declare oxygen a pollutant.
     
  6. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    58,168
    Likes Received:
    48,335
    A little infatuated with Gilly are we..
     
  7. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    58,168
    Likes Received:
    48,335
    Plants need oxygen too.
     
  8. El_Conquistador

    El_Conquistador King of the D&D, The Legend, #1 Ranking

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2002
    Messages:
    15,612
    Likes Received:
    6,578
    All of this is a way to increase the tax burden on America and increase the size of government, which will ultimately move jobs and industry overseas and weaken our economy. The move will cripple the already crippled Midwest, which relies heavily on coal. And of course, anything we do to attempt to reduce CO2 emissions is canceled x 10 due to Asia's development (which is heavily reliant on coal).

    Do we really need to raise the cost of electricity on Americans right now? The evidence of global warming is spotty at best. Luxury problems like the temperature rising 1% over 100 years simply is not worthy of our attention at a time like this.

    Someone sent me a link the other day saying that the US is actually a CO2 sink, meaning that it destroys more CO2 than it emits. Can any of the enviros confirm/deny this?
     
  9. ima_drummer2k

    ima_drummer2k Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    36,425
    Likes Received:
    9,373
    sorry
     
  10. Sweet Lou 4 2

    Sweet Lou 4 2 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    39,189
    Likes Received:
    20,340
    CO2 a health threat? that's silly.

    It's one thing to curb greenhouse gases, but lets not make a mockery of our laws to do it.
     
  11. shastarocket

    shastarocket Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2006
    Messages:
    13,773
    Likes Received:
    1,082
    If what you say is true, do you really think this would be such a political issue?

    Post the link, let us decide how much is true and how much is skewed statistics.
     
  12. bigtexxx

    bigtexxx Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Messages:
    26,980
    Likes Received:
    2,365
    I spoke with a few consultants last week that told me if Obama's nationwide renewable portfolio standard is put in place (which basically forces X% of the nation's power supply to be from renewables), it would raise the average person's electricity bill by 20%. Obama doesn't have a clue what he's doing.
     
  13. B-Bob

    B-Bob "94-year-old self-described dreamer"
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    35,985
    Likes Received:
    36,840
    Hey, somebody sent me a link claiming that I can fly with an anti-gravity belt for just $19.99 -- can anyone confirm or deny this?

    I think it would be awesome if the US of A was a net sink of CO2! Let's step through it using the tiniest shard of logic, shall we?

    * The US of A is, by far, the greatest single producer of CO2 among all nations.
    * If we were somehow a net sink of CO2, that would mean every single country on earth would be likely to be a net sink, since they all produce a lot less than us.
    * Ergo, the human species would be a net sink of CO2. (The mechanism would be something like people who suck on tailpipes or breathe into paper bags or eat burned toast and pencils. Awesome!)
    * The nearly exponential factual rise in atmospheric CO2 since the dawn of the industrial revolution would need a non-human cause, (even though the use of combustion engines has risen in parallel -- hmmm.)
    * So one would argue that the earth has naturally released a giant fart of CO2, that coincides completely with our burning of fossil fuels that expels CO2. Or one would argue that aliens are secretly working to increase our CO2; this was explored in the 1996 film "The Arrival," starring Charlie Sheen.

    The zero integrity disinformation campaign is well understood on this BBS, and, when stripped of new clown-like adornments to entertain us, it has the excitement and novelty of burned Wonder bread, which the lunatic fringe should be busily eating to fulfill the fantasy of humanity as CO2 sink.
     
  14. bigtexxx

    bigtexxx Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Messages:
    26,980
    Likes Received:
    2,365
    sorry, but that's some of the worst logic I've ever seen. You address supply of CO2, but nothing on demand or consumption of CO2? Then you hurl insults about clown like adornments, when you yourself open your post with discussing anti-gravity belts? Uhh, thanks for that post, B-Bob.
     
  15. Classic

    Classic Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    6,101
    Likes Received:
    608
    ah, more taxes...obama is such a great salesman
     
  16. weslinder

    weslinder Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Messages:
    12,983
    Likes Received:
    291
    Not going to happen. Factory farms can afford the paperwork. The hobbyists will just keep theirs below whatever the minimum threshold is. It's the for-profit independent farmers that will be hurt by this.
     
  17. El_Conquistador

    El_Conquistador King of the D&D, The Legend, #1 Ranking

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2002
    Messages:
    15,612
    Likes Received:
    6,578
    Sizzle Chest,
    Quit being a poosie and answer my question. After all, you are the self touted Mr. Wizard of this BBS.

    Is the US a net sink for CO2 emissions?
     
  18. Bandwagoner

    Bandwagoner Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Messages:
    27,105
    Likes Received:
    3,757
    Incorrect. The correct answer is China. Check your answer on O=C=O and try again.
     
  19. bigtexxx

    bigtexxx Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Messages:
    26,980
    Likes Received:
    2,365
    B-Bob didn't bother to concern himself with facts in his post. Pretty hiliarous given the fact that he was trying to mock others for not using logic. Oops.
     
  20. KingCheetah

    KingCheetah Atomic Playboy
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    59,079
    Likes Received:
    52,748
    Hey, Giuseppe and Pinocchio -- your data -- from where doth it come ?

    [​IMG]

    CO2 By Country
    The US produces the highest percentage of the world’s CO2 emissions. In fact, U.S. fossil-fuel emissions are 21% higher than those of the world's second largest emitter, the People's Republic of China, but this gap is closing quickly. Per capita values in excess of 5.5 metric tons of carbon per person are the highest of the industrialized world.

    link
     

Share This Page