iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Greenhouse Gases Database: Companies Fight To Keep Global Warming Data Secret

DINA CAPPIELLO   10/28/10 07:37 AM ET   AP

Greenhouse Gases Database Global Warming
This undated handout photo provided by DuPont shows their titanium dioxide factory plant in New Johnsonville, Tenn. Some of the country's largest polluters of heat-trapping gases, including businesses that publicly support curbs on global warming, don't want the public knowing exactly how much they pollute. For DuPont, a founder of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership _ a group of businesses that support controls on global warming pollution _ the proposal has caused heartburn, according to Michae

WASHINGTON — Some of the country's largest emitters of heat-trapping gases, including businesses that publicly support efforts to curb global warming, don't want the public knowing exactly how much they pollute.

Oil producers and refiners, along with manufacturers of steel, aluminum and even home appliances, are fighting a proposal by the Environmental Protection Agency that would make the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that companies release – and the underlying data businesses use to calculate the amounts – available online.

While gross estimates exist for such emissions from transportation and electricity production and manufacturing as a whole, the EPA is requiring companies for the first time to submit information for each individual facility.

The companies say that disclosing details beyond a facility's total emissions to the public would reveal company secrets by letting competitors know what happens inside their factories. More importantly, they argue, when it comes to understanding global warming, the public doesn't need to know anything more than what goes into the air.

"There is no need for the public to have information beyond what is entering the atmosphere," Steven H. Bernhardt, global director for regulatory affairs for Honeywell International Inc., said in comments filed with the agency earlier this year. The Morristown, N.J.-based company is a leading manufacturer of hydrofluorocarbons, a potent greenhouse gas used in a variety of consumer products. Honeywell wants the EPA to reconsider its proposal, which the company said would damage its business.

Other companies are pressing the agency to require a third party to verify the data, so they don't have to submit it at all, or to allow them to argue on a case-by-case basis to keep some of it confidential, a suggestion the EPA warned would delay public release.

The EPA says it's necessary to make the data public in order for the companies' calculations to be checked.

"It is important for outside groups and the public to have access to this information so they can essentially see and check EPA's and the company's math – giving the public greater confidence in the quality of data," the agency said in a statement.

As the EPA prepares to regulate greenhouse gases, the data companies are being required to submit will help determine what limits eventually are put in place and whether they are working.

The EPA required companies responsible for large amounts of heat-trapping pollution to begin this year collecting 1,500 pieces of information. The data, which is due to be reported by March, will be used in the first-ever inventory of greenhouse gases, a massive database that will reveal most sources of greenhouse gases in the United States.

Suppliers of fossil fuels, which when burned release greenhouse gases, plus manufacturers of engines and vehicles, and facilities that release 25,000 tons or more of any of six heat-trapping gases, all must comply with the regulation, the first by the government on pollution blamed for global warming.

Most companies don't have a problem telling the government or the public how much they pollute; they already do it for other types of pollution, such as toxic chemicals and sulfur dioxide, the gas that forms acid rain.

What they oppose – almost unanimously – is the public disclosure of the underlying data necessary to calculate the annual amount of greenhouse gases.

The EPA wouldn't need that information if companies actually measured greenhouse gas pollution at its source. But that equipment is expensive and for many companies would cost millions of dollars.

Even the Federal Trade Commission has weighed in, and asked the EPA to treat data used in emissions equations as confidential since it could lead to collusion among companies and raise prices for consumers.

Aluminum smelters want 11 of the 15 data fields the EPA intends to make public kept confidential, according to comments filed by the Aluminum Association.

Koch Nitrogen Co. LLC, a fertilizer producer, questions the EPA's desire to make unit-specific or facility-specific emissions available, calling it "misguided" since a change in pollution from a single factory is unlikely to influence policy on a global problem.

For DuPont, a founder of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership – a group of businesses that support controls on global warming pollution – the proposal has caused heartburn, according to Michael Parr, senior manager of government affairs. Many of the company's plants, including a titanium dioxide factory in New Johnsonville, Tenn., release greenhouse gases when generating power.

"We actually lobbied for this reporting bill because we think it is a very good idea," Parr said in an interview. "What we are trying to get across is that if you take that information about how the plant runs and you make that available to the public it does not make the public any better informed about what is coming out of my plant. It exposes the fruits of all my innovation."

If there is one polluting sector that is supportive of EPA's plans for full disclosure, it's electricity producers, which make public much of the data already.

Companies that sell information to investors and businesses want even more disclosure. They argue it is necessary to know how efficient a facility is, which is the amount of greenhouse gases released per unit of production. Bloomberg LP, which has provided greenhouse gas data to the financial community since 2005, is asking the EPA to make public production volume data even if it is not used to calculate emissions.

In the company's comments it says, "Greenhouse gas emissions are not meaningful in isolation."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

WASHINGTON — Some of the country's largest emitters of heat-trapping gases, including businesses that publicly support efforts to curb global warming, don't want the public knowing exactly how m...
WASHINGTON — Some of the country's largest emitters of heat-trapping gases, including businesses that publicly support efforts to curb global warming, don't want the public knowing exactly how m...
Filed by Adam J. Rose  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 446
  • 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 »  (6 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:18 PM on 11/07/2010
For those who remain educable

www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:56 PM on 11/07/2010
Are extreme high temperatures becoming more common?

www.skepticalscience.com/nasa-giss-what-global-warming-looks-like.html
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:41 PM on 10/31/2010
http://www.sciencenews.org/index/generic/activity/view/id/64674/title/GNP%E2%80%99s_glaciers__Going%2C_going
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
doriath22
Born-again Jacobin. Robespierre had the right idea
08:38 AM on 10/31/2010
No doubt the companies believe that providing truthful information will "confuse" the public
01:49 PM on 10/31/2010
no it is not their business
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dragonmaster
06:43 PM on 10/30/2010
These companies are not dumb- they understand the overwhelming evidence that supports climate change- and they realize it will happen fast.
05:36 PM on 10/30/2010
If it's CO2 from fossil fuels and cap-n-trade inventories that's the issue, you don't need to know the amount od CO2 each plant emits. An inventory of how much coal. natural gas, gasoline and diesel fuel ENTERING a plant is all that is required. Simply estimate by number of vehicles and train cars enetering a facility and multiplying by 3-4 (depending on fuel type) will give you a good handle on CO2 emissions.

If they don't like the outcome, they'll disclose.

Personally I hate penalizing bad behavior, especially when there iare good behaviors that can be rewarded. For example, investements in wind and solar energy plants (actual construction not just in the general area) will offset any "penalty" from CO2 caps. Citizen's and new companies are eligible for equivalent tax credits for their investments in the same;.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:38 PM on 10/30/2010
If we had good regulation we would not be able to keep these types of data secrets. It would also be illegal and punishable by law.
01:47 PM on 10/31/2010
and who would collect this data
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
07:01 PM on 10/29/2010
Trust big business, they love you and want you to be happy. "There is no need for the public to have information" That's the old military "need to know" .
07:21 PM on 10/29/2010
agreed.......i have to be willing to report what comes from my stacks.........riiiight, and i will do that honestly trust me ........laughing
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
07:49 AM on 10/30/2010
That's why Nixon and Congress started the EPA.
09:12 AM on 10/29/2010
We want to know the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that companies release – and the underlying data businesses use to calculate the amounts – and we want to see that online.
06:00 PM on 10/31/2010
Agreed, A-greed, Transparency & being informed, no not us ants.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
aligatorhardt
Cut on the bias
07:49 AM on 10/29/2010
When it comes to public poisoning, the need for transparency overrules the need for maximizing profits in the short term. The producers of pollutants have been getting away with pushing off the health consequences of pollution onto the taxpayer. We all have to pay in terms of more health problems and higher health care costs. The loss of productivity is worth more money than the cost of measuring pollutant levels. The actions of the EPA need to be based on reliable science, and that requires testing and analysis. The regulation of pollutants is necessary to protect the public health. The polluters can be inspired to look for improved methods of production using more sustainable practices and more responsible disposal of wastes. The costs of dealing with pollutants should not be placed on the taxpayers instead of the responsible parties.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Minolta
11:53 PM on 10/28/2010
Thing I like about climate change is that we can now blame sever winters on man caused global warming!

I'm old enough to know this bogus global warming will be discredited but of course the socialists will try to keep it alive as long as it can be useful to pushing the "progressive" agenda.
12:47 AM on 10/29/2010
in the early 70s it was going to be an ice age ........then a while ago global warming with just bake us..........now climate change will cause the Atlantic conveyer to stop and Europe will freeze and we will bake

laughing
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MikeWebster
Always happy.
01:03 AM on 10/29/2010
Global warming is now well and truly understood and confirmed.

The turning off of the Atlantic currents is a prediction of something that is possible due to too much fresh meltwater impacting the salt gradient that helps drive the current.

If you can't tell the difference between people mentioning this as a possibility, and the clear evidence and science that shows global warming to be true, then you're just another denier out to muddy the waters.

In the early 70s there was never an ice age predicted that was supported by every large Science organisation in the world, as well as by mountains of evidence as is the case with Global Warming.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
05:24 PM on 10/29/2010
wdw505: "in the early 70s it was going to be an ice age ........"

Discredited science denier talking points never die..... no matter how many times you put a stake through their hearts.

"In the 70s, They said there'd be an Ice Age"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB3S0fnOr0M
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MikeWebster
Always happy.
12:56 AM on 10/29/2010
You can have severe winters and severe summers - but the key to global warming is the word global. So long as the worlds average temperature keeps rising, as it is due to CO2, Global warming continues.
01:21 AM on 10/29/2010
okay so.......it does not prove that i had any impact on it
01:48 AM on 10/29/2010
so Iceland got moved to Russia? wow
07:47 PM on 10/28/2010
It's really too bad companies are forced to lie over a lie'. How about some facts.

Carbon Dioxide makes up only 0.0387% (387 ppm) of the earth’s atmosphere by volume (2009y) but CO2 comprises only around 1 percent of total Green House Gases (GHG) in the atmosphere. Water vapor, comprises 95 percent of all GHGs. The other GHGs are methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), ozone and CFCs. Water vapor varies from a trace in extremely cold and dry air to about 4% (40,000 ppm) in extremely warm and humid air. Water vapor therefore averages about 2 – 3% in atmosphere while CO2 is about 0.0387% (0.04%) by volume averaged over the planet. There is about 60 times more water vapor in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide under average conditions. [Note: Most supporters of global warming leave out water vapor when charting GHG’s.]

Of the approximately 1% of CO2 to total GHG’s, ~ 3% of the 1% is anthropogenic meaning Human caused. (Goldburg). Human contribution (anthropogenic) is 8 Gton which is approx. 1 % of total atmospheric CO2 (750 Gton in atmosphere). Negligible impact!

Vostok Ice Core Data: – shows CO2 as a lagging, not a leading indicator of Global warming.

Conclusions: (1) CO2 is not a pollutant! (2) It is non-toxic under normal use. (3) Benefits far outweigh negatives for both humans and plant life. (4) CO2 is a lagging indicator of global warming; (5) CO2 has been many times higher during previous ice ages.
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
08:35 PM on 10/28/2010
Your conclusion of "Negligible impact!" is mistaken. The effects of CO2 is a function of its quantity, not its percentage of the total atmosphere. Your other conclusions also aren't drawn from your numbers and the Vostok cores record the ancient climate, not recent warming.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MikeWebster
Always happy.
12:55 AM on 10/29/2010
Of course those who study Global warming are concerned about water vapour. But water vapour won't significantly rise or fall by itself. It is the CO2 created warming that allows more water vapour in the warmer atmosphere that causes the water vapour to rise.

The Human contribution makes up around 100% of each years rise in CO2. The point being that the CO2 in the atmosphere is recycled back into nature, and then back to the atmosphere, as you'd expect. In fact releasing CO2 into the atmosphere produces a 0 net gain, if you are only releasing what has been recently removed from the atmosphere. Burning fossil fuels release millions of years of sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere.

As the warming continues, the soils are releasing more and more sequestered CO2. As the permafrosts melt, and the Arctic ocean begins to bubble with Methane, a much more powerful feedback is being engaged.

1. CO2 is a pollutant given the proven warming caused by burning fossil fuels.
2. CO2 is toxic - try breathing 100% CO2 some day - but that is irrelevant.
3. The benefits to humans and plant life include the inability to grow enough food to feed humans because of ongoing droughts in parts of the planet, and too much rain in others.
4. CO2 causes global warming - no doubt of it.
5. CO2 has been higher during ice ages when the Earth has been further from the sun.
02:03 AM on 10/29/2010
c02 helps plants grow.......food production will happen where normally the area is not able to produce large quantities....sea level increases will kill large populations......reduction of population will lower C02 production
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
05:27 PM on 10/29/2010
wdw505: "c02 helps plants grow"

Discredited science denier talking points never die..... no matter how many times you put a stake through their hearts.

"The 'CO2 is Plant Food' Crock "

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g093lhtpEFo
06:28 PM on 10/28/2010
Everyone railing about how they have a right to know the quantity of greenhouse gases being emitted by corporations is correct. Unfortunately they are also not understanding this article. The point is that companies are already willing to (and do) do this.

The debate is over whether companies have to publicly release data facility by facility and share their calculation methods with the public. They already share this info with the EPA which (quite properly, in my opinion) checks the calculations but treats the info as proprietary and doesn't share it. I'm going to have to agree with the companies here that as far as public understanding and climate policy goes, only total emissions of greenhouse gases are relevant.
05:49 PM on 10/28/2010
Why shouldn't you or I know exactly how much cr-ap a company is pumping into the air we breathe? How can anyone be so self defeating as to be against full disclosure by polluters?
photo
Libertarian09
Anti War Socialist with a taste for freedom
11:53 PM on 10/29/2010
I might suggest that you refer to erik59's comment above, or perhaps actually read the article before commenting.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SierraSon
03:51 PM on 10/28/2010
This is worldwide issue and the EPA should consider how other countries' goverments are implementing similar controls over big industrual polluters. Britain, Canada and Australia are very proactive as many other European governments, but with the English speaking ones, it's far easier for Americans to assess policy and gauge response and effectiveness.