iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

EPA: Greenhouse Gases Are Danger To Human Health, Must Be Regulated

DINA CAPPIELLO and H. JOSEF HEBERT   12/ 7/09 04:41 PM ET   AP

China Climate

WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency took a major step Monday toward regulating greenhouses gases, concluding that climate changing pollution threatens the public health and the environment.

The announcement came as the Obama administration looked to boost its arguments at an international climate conference that the United States is aggressively taking actions to combat global warming, even though Congress has yet to act on climate legislation. The conference opened Monday in Copenhagen.

The EPA said that the scientific evidence surrounding climate change clearly shows that greenhouse gases "threaten the public health and welfare of the American people" and that the pollutants – mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels – should be regulated under the Clean Air Act.

"These long-overdue findings cement 2009's place in history as the year when the United States government began addressing the challenge of greenhouse-gas pollution," said EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson at news conference.

The action by the EPA, which has been anticipated for months, clearly was timed to add to the momentum toward some sort of agreement on climate change at the Copenhagen conference and try to push Congress to approve climate legislation.

"This is a clear message to Copenhagen of the Obama administration's commitments to address global climate change," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., lead author of a climate bill before the Senate. "The message to Congress is crystal clear: get moving."

Under a Supreme Court ruling, the so-called endangerment finding is needed before the EPA can regulate carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases released from automobiles, power plants, and factories under the federal Clean Air Act.

The EPA signaled last April that it was inclined to view heat-trapping pollution as a threat to public health and welfare and began to take public comments under a formal rulemaking. The action marked a reversal from the Bush administration, which had refused before leaving office to issue the finding, despite a conclusion by EPA scientists that it was warranted.

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 bill being considered before Congress. On Monday, some of those groups questioned the timing of the EPA's announcement, calling it political.

"The implications of today's action by EPA are far-reaching...individual Americans and consumers and businesses alike will be dramatically affected by this decision," said Charles T. Drevna, the president of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association. Drevna, in a statement, said "it is hardly the time to risk the remainder of the U.S. industrial sector in an attempt to achieve a short-term international public relations victory."

Any regulations are also likely to spawn lawsuits and lengthy legal fights.

The EPA and the White House have said regulations on greenhouse gases will not be imminent even after an endangerment finding, saying that the administration would prefer that Congress act to limit such pollution through an economy-wide cap on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Nevertheless, the EPA has begun the early stages of developing permit requirements on carbon dioxide pollution from large emitters such as power plants. The administration also has said it will set the first-ever greenhouse gas emissions standards for automobiles and raise fuel economy to 35 miles per gallon by 2016 to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

The EPA's readiness to tackle climate change is expected to give a boost to U.S. arguments at the climate conference opening in Copenhagen this week, where the United States offer a provisional target to reduce greenhouse gases.

While the House has approved climate legislation that would cut emissions by 17 percent by 2020 and about 80 percent by mid-century, the Senate has yet to take up the measure amid strong Republican opposition and reluctance by some centrist Democrats.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., lead author of the Senate bill, has argued that if Congress doesn't act, the EPA will regulate greenhouse gas emissions. He has called EPA regulation a "blunt instrument" that would pose a bigger problem for industry than legislation crafted to mitigate some of the costs of shifting away from carbon emitting fossil fuels.

The way was opened for the EPA to use the Clean Air Act to cut climate-changing emissions by the Supreme Court in 2007, when the court declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Act. But the court said the EPA must determine if these pollutants pose a danger to public health and welfare before it can regulate them.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency took a major step Monday toward regulating greenhouses gases, concluding that climate changing pollution threatens the public health and the envi...
WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency took a major step Monday toward regulating greenhouses gases, concluding that climate changing pollution threatens the public health and the envi...
Filed by Nico Pitney  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 4,693
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (69 total)
RTIII
Poster of over 0.0135% of all HufPost comments
08:34 PM on 12/09/2009
Well, what do you know? This is the first very significant POSITIVE action by the EPA nearly since its founding!

Great News.

Let's hope there's a LOT more to come!
.
10:50 PM on 12/08/2009
Wouldn't it be easier to just k!ll about, I don't know, 45% of the animal kingdom? Away with all that nasty Carbon Dioxide.
10:49 PM on 12/08/2009
Wouldn't it be easier to just kill about, I don't know, 45% of the animal kingdom? Away with all that nasty Carbon Dioxide.
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
11:07 AM on 12/09/2009
Animals are carbon neutral and give off only what they take in.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JoeTheProgrammer
I love dogs.
10:45 PM on 12/08/2009
Al Gore - Betting he'll be revered in the history books for saving the world. He's positioned himself brilliantly. If 30, 40, 50 years from now the earth continues to warm, he can just say we didn't listen to him. We didn't do enough. If, on the other hand, the earth cools, he can claim responsibility for it. He'll the savior of the human race. He'll be among the most famous men in history.

UN - Betting they can pull off a huge transfer of wealth from the United States and Europe to every two bit despot and dictator in the third world. Al and the UN play off each other. Al gets the Nobel, the UN gets the support of the democrats and their willing guilt ridden constituency.

IPCC - Such a tremendous vested interest in supporting the UN and the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming they manipulate data and conspire to discredit those in the scientific community who come forward with evidence that refutes their findings or doesn't support AGW. All in all, very unscientific behavior for a bunch of scientists.
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
11:17 AM on 12/09/2009
Do you have any support for these conspiracy theories?

You have a lot of contradictions to explain. How will Gore claim credit for something that won't happen until he is long dead? Why would the nations who host, fund and have a superior position in the UN make agreements that aren't in their best interest? How did the IPCC change the science conducted before the IPCC was formed and how do they coerce all these scientists when they aren't even paid for participating? How can you argue against "unscientific behavior" when you deny researchers'
the ability to police their peers?
10:31 PM on 12/08/2009
I for one can't wait for the Govt. to start taxing our feces. That will be great!
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
11:21 AM on 12/09/2009
You don't think about these things do you? Most people already pay for sewer service or septic service. They typically include sales taxes or fees to pay for inspectors. It keep you from getting dysentery or worse.
10:31 PM on 12/08/2009
How did earth survive for so long with such high CO2 levels? Gosh it was sick a long time.
08:44 PM on 12/08/2009
The greenies don't realize that even if we eliminated all man made CO2 blah blah blah, it would eventually get much higher, right now it's at a very low number, 380ppm which is nothing, average is 1000ppm, so what will you greenies do when earth doesn't care that you stop all man made CO2 output, and still changes things?
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
11:27 AM on 12/09/2009
The natural cycles will continue their course. The interest in capping CO2 is to not make it worse. Whatever you think the CO2 concentrations were millions of years ago isn't particularly relevant. The concerns with the present are shortages of freshj water and energy as temperatures rise.
RTIII
Poster of over 0.0135% of all HufPost comments
08:32 PM on 12/09/2009
This is a lie and you should know it - since you're spouting it.

Carbon dioxide hasn't been this high since well over a BILLION years ago with the introduction of significant quantities of oxygen in our atmosphere, an event which altered the Earth forever. ...Humans have only been around a few tens of thousands of years. We still argue about just how long, but we've been here at least thirty thousand years, and probably less than 80 thousand - absolutely not more than 100 thousand.

One hundred thousand years is 1X10^5 while a billion is 1X10^9, which means that CO2 has never been this high in over FOUR ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE longer than humans have even existed.
.
photo
Lorianne
ama vitam
06:00 PM on 12/08/2009
Annie Leonard presents:
The Story of Cap and Trade
http://storyofstuff.com/capandtrade/
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:13 PM on 12/08/2009
remember when we used to elect the people that made the laws of the nation? Now it's done by an agency that does not answer to us lowly subjects.
10:32 PM on 12/08/2009
Scary stuff my friend, scary stuff.
02:05 PM on 12/08/2009
this is a power grab by president obama. he will now circumvent the legislative process in order to implement cap and tax. the theory of evolution is 150 years old and it's still a theory. global warming/climate change is no more than a few decades old and the debate is supposedly closed. science never closes the debate. the debate always remains open and as evidence accumulates it becomes easier and easier to persuade people. when anyone says a scientific debate is closed or over be very suspicious. if something is true and so self-evident then there is no need to close the debate.

the scariest thing is how the obama administration is stealing power from the people. a few months ago pres. obama granted sweeping new authority to the FDA to regulate tobacco. now he steals power from congress and the people it represents to pass cap and tax, a bill that the country does not want as evidenced by its defeat in congress. why and how is it that obama gets a pass from the MSM when he does something like this? even worse is how he gets a pass from his flock.
03:17 PM on 12/08/2009
Well said. The Supreme Court ruling that gave the FDA this power based its decision on the IPCC report which now is shown to be based on faulty science. This is just another case of the courts making the laws and bypassing the legislative branch.
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
11:33 AM on 12/09/2009
The FDA is the Food and Drug Administration and an example of how you don't know what you are talking about.
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
11:32 AM on 12/09/2009
The word "theory" has different meanings depending on context. In a court case each side has their theory of the case and the jury decides between them. In science, theory describes a hypothesis that has withstood significant testing for a long period of time. Things like gravity and evolution are such theories.

It is hardly a stretch for the EPA to regulate a gas that has adverse environmental effects.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
fumes
Midnight Toker
01:07 PM on 12/08/2009
Alaska Science Forum

November 5, 1982
Are We Heading for Another Ice Age?

Since 1850, we seem to be in a period of glacial retreat coinciding with a worldwide increase of about 1°F in mean temperature. Beginning in the 1940s, however, glaciologists have noted a widespread slowdown in glacial retreat and numerous examples of expansion.

In Alaska, although 63 percent of the 200 glaciers measured were retreating, seven percent were advancing and 30 percent were holding their own.

While many scientists believe that the future holds another ice age, most agree that the present interglacial period will last for at least another 2,500 years.
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF5/574.html
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
01:24 PM on 12/08/2009
What is this 27-year old, one-half page, unreferenced blurb supposed to convey?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
phoenixdoglover
My dog loves my progressive treats agenda
01:35 PM on 12/08/2009
This is your contribution? An article from 1982?

Why don't you grab something more recent, such as the latest summary of climate research prepared in advance of the Copenhagen summit. Here's a link. Read it and come on back.

http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/
01:42 PM on 12/08/2009
The contribution states that we have been screaming coming ice age, coming heat wave, coming ice age over and over.

It changes about every decade. Now we are on a Coming heat wave phase even tho we are cooling. This is all politics.
10:32 PM on 12/08/2009
Got the original data by any chance? Oh no I forgot they got rid of it for some reason, they're dogs ate their homework.
11:24 AM on 12/08/2009
I'm glad to see the EPA stepping up the argument for global warming, especially after the worrisome report that people as a whole are starting to not believe in global warming.
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
01:31 PM on 12/08/2009
I've seen polls which suggest that Americans are more worried about other things, but not that they reject global warming. That is still a minority position.
03:48 PM on 12/08/2009
This week's CNN poll states:

According to the survey, roughly a third of the people who believe in global warming think it is due to natural causes, rather than manmade causes such as industrial emissions. As a result, the number who say that global warming is caused by humans has dropped from 54 percent last summer to 45 percent now.

You are continuously wrong in your posts on global warming. Stop trying to get your facts off the back of Cap'n Crunch cereal boxes and especially don't listen to Algore.
11:08 AM on 12/08/2009
primordialsoup,

Your numbers are old………..go over to China and carry your protest signs telling them to cut their emmissions......see how far you get.



China overtakes U.S. in greenhouse gas emissions

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/20/business/worldbusiness/20iht-emit.1.6227564.html
Published: Wednesday, June 20, 2007

LONDON — China overtook the United States in 2006 as the world's biggest emitter of carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas blamed for the bulk of global warming

China produced 6,200 million tons of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels and making cement last year, the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency said Tuesday on its Web site. That pushed it past the United States, which produced 5,800 million tons of the gas, the agency said.