EPA moves to regulate smokestack greenhouse gases

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - EPA moves to regulate smokestack greenhouse gases stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

DINA CAPPIELLO | 09/30/09 07:59 PM | AP

What's Your Reaction?

WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency took steps Wednesday to control the emissions blamed for global warming from power plants, factories and refineries for the first time.

The EPA proposal would require polluters to reduce six greenhouse gases by installing the best available technology and improving energy efficiency whenever a facility is significantly changed or built. The rule applies to any industrial plant that emits at least 25,000 tons of greenhouse gases a year.

These large sources are responsible for 70 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions – mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels – that are released in the U.S., the EPA said.

"By using the power and authority of the Clean Air Act, we can begin reducing emissions from the nation's largest greenhouse gas emitting facilities without placing an undue burden on the businesses that make up the vast majority of our economy," EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said. "We know the corner coffee shop is no place to look for meaningful carbon reductions."

Earlier this year, the Obama administration announced that it would start developing the first-ever greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars and trucks. Those regulations, which would take effect in 2010, compel the EPA to control greenhouse gases from large smokestacks as well, the agency said.

Industry groups immediately questioned the agency's argument. They charged that the EPA was skirting the law, since the Clean Air Act typically covers any facility releasing more than 250 tons a year of a recognized pollutant. That threshold would require more facilities to fall under the new regulations.

"This proposal incorrectly assumes that one industry's greenhouse gas emissions are worse than another's," said Charles T. Drevna, president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association.

Jeff Holmstead, a former top EPA air pollution official who is now a lobbyist for the energy industry, said the agency was trying to "fit a square peg into a round hole."

Story continues below
advertisement

"Normally, it takes an act of Congress to change the words of a statute enacted by Congress, and many of us are very curious to see EPA's legal justification for today's proposal," Holmstead said.

Jackson, speaking at a news conference at a climate change summit being hosted by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, said the rule was legally defensible.

"The EPA would not propose a rule that we didn't believe ... made good legal sense," she said.

"EPA would not propose a rule that did not make legal sense," she said.

The EPA's announcement came hours after Senate Democrats unveiled legislation that would set limits on the amount of greenhouse gases from large industrial sources. The Senate bill, unlike the House-passed version, preserves the EPA's authority to regulate under the Clean Air Act.

Environmentalists said Wednesday the two efforts go hand-in-hand.

"You can't have one without the other if we're going to be successful in moving America to clean energy," said Emily Figdor, director of the global warming program at Environment America, an advocacy group.

The move will likely increase pressure on Congress to pass a bill to avoid less-flexible, and what Republicans said would be more costly, regulations. Supporters of the legislation have already used pending EPA rules as leverage to get Congress to act.

Senate Republicans have already attempted to block the EPA from issuing regulations to buy more time for Congress to work on a bill. At least one Republican leader, Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, said Wednesday that Congress would try to stop the EPA again.

___

On the Net:

Environmental Protection Agency: http://www.epa.gov

WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency took steps Wednesday to control the emissions blamed for global warming from power plants, factories and refineries for the first time. The EPA ...
WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency took steps Wednesday to control the emissions blamed for global warming from power plants, factories and refineries for the first time. The EPA ...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
53
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)

A lot of bad analogy and bad analysis by the commentators here.

There are 2 main methods of cooling: radiative and convection. Radiative cooling is what is
referred to by the greenhouse effect. The IR radiation of Earth is being slowed by molecules with 3 or
more atoms (vibrational modes), such as water, methane, and co2. However, Earth is not a perfect blackbody and the IR radiation is that of the Earth's surface, mostly water. Satellite data show that although there is a rough contour of a 300K blackbody, the spectrum is that of water, with a big hole around the 600 cm-1 (one of the co2 IR lines). Surface IR emissions are absorbed by water vapor, not so much by co2.

In terms of energy transport, the convection process is much more powerful and faster than the radiative process, thanks to latent heat transfer by water phase changes. Experiment: 2 containers of water are heated to, say, 40C. Container A is a thermos without the mirroring so the water can cool only by radiation. Container B has the top opened so water can evaporate into the surroundings. Which container has the fastest lowering temperature?

The alarmists are confused by first crying about global warming, then about climate change. GCM used to be Global Climate Model, it is now Global Current Model, since air currents, along with the attending water dynamics, dictate climate. Well, ocean dynamics (again, water) plays a big role in climate.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:51 PM on 10/02/2009

Good. Now lets go one step further.
I went to a Sierra Club meeting and I didn't see one 38mpg car. I touched a two ton 17mpg DTS Cadillac like the one Gore drove in his movie and big SUVs. I went to a Democratic Congressman's fundraiser and I filmed 35 suv.s, fuel inefficient minivans, V6 luxury cars, ( they all have a life cycle of 11 years ). I filmed lesbians driving a Hummer. ( i like lesbians ) Rachel Maddow even bought a 18mpg truck and not an AVEO or Yaris or a Geo Metro that gets 43mpg. WHY. They have been around for 30 years. Why can't democrats make that sacrifice and downsize and set an example for others to emulate. If you want less co2 first start driving smaller cars and cut co2 by a billion tons a year. Thats the human thing to do. Park the ego and drive the spirit. Watch MTV's Cribs. See one fuel efficient car? Joe Vecchio borodinobullett.com, writer/director, film... why i left the democratic party. PG17

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:23 AM on 10/02/2009
- lmvd3 I'm a Fan of lmvd3 18 fans permalink

IT'S ABOUT TIME!!! IT'S ABOUT A CENTURY OVERDUE!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:49 PM on 10/01/2009
photo

Yes, we have to rise to the standards we had, 30yrs ago.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:21 AM on 10/02/2009
- lmvd3 I'm a Fan of lmvd3 18 fans permalink

What?!? We've never had safe standards for industry that are protective of public health. It's high time we did.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:12 PM on 10/02/2009
- research I'm a Fan of research 286 fans permalink

Good, Best Practices or equivalent should be required, Tax all pollution of the commons.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:22 PM on 10/01/2009

Great to see the administration doing the job of protecting the environment. Fossil fuels have had a good run, time to move over. http://www.dasolar.com/alternative-energy/fossil-fuels

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:05 PM on 10/01/2009
photo

Great to see you are doing your job writing ads.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:12 AM on 11/15/2009

It's about time the EPA got its balls back. Too bad the next Repug president that gets elected will roll it all back for his friends.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:39 PM on 10/01/2009
- AJH I'm a Fan of AJH 16 fans permalink

Rolling back federal regulations is quite dificult and subject to judicial protection by non governmental entities. If you get em done early enough no worries about that.

The sickening thing is you have the massive polluters arguing that the small business should be required to be regulated.

This regulation is however the hammer. The kerry-Boxer proposal is the velvet glove. This say's get in the room and support climate change regulation designed aorund a rational designed system that meshes with international plans for carbon reductions or we'll beat you over the head with industry by industry mandates.

As we recognize we have stautory limits in regulating existing property we'll get you when you modify upgrade(New Source Review). BTW to get the reductions we want overall if we can only get new and modifying the standards those facilities must comply with will be much much harder than an overall cap that applies retroactively industry wide.

This is why you'll see major manufacturers getting on board with a climate change bill. Security in planning or huge unpredictable risk.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:04 PM on 10/01/2009
- leevntheus I'm a Fan of leevntheus 60 fans permalink
photo

I'm sure the EPA head is now at the top of Glenn Beck's hit list and that environmental regulation is now a communist plot.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:32 PM on 10/01/2009
- texfly I'm a Fan of texfly 17 fans permalink
photo

A global warming analogy:
Think about the insulauion of your house. The thicker the insulation the warmer your home gets for a given burn-rate of heating fuel. CO2 is making earth's insulation thicker (actaully quite literally) since it is a PERMANENT gas.

Water condenses, CO2 doesn't. Water has a mechanism to keep its net "insulation value" fairly constant. But not CO2, it will continue to increase in thickness AND efficiency (concentration). And guess what? Water will also increase in thickness as the tropsphere swells. And more heat will be trapped.

The thicker layer may have more serious implications. If it thickens by 10%, the concentration of O2, (the life sustaining gas) DECREASES by 10% form 21% to 19% . That will cause a considerable global headache (until we evolve).

Romeo, will say that the more CO2, the more O2 because the plants will make it. But let's see how he answers, the test below.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:34 PM on 10/01/2009
- leevntheus I'm a Fan of leevntheus 60 fans permalink
photo

and, to add, the plants are being eradicated from the face of the planet at an equally alarming rate. But I am confused. Liquid H2O increasing in thickness? The unique properties of the Hydrogen/Oxygen bond of water lead to the inability to compress water in a closed system. The earth is a closed system. What are you referring to as "thickness"?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:28 PM on 10/01/2009
- Exusian I'm a Fan of Exusian 27 fans permalink

I agree, leevntheus, what texfly wrote is more than a little confusing.

I think his "water will also increase in thickness as the tropsphere swells" refers to the increase in water _vapour_ in the atmosphere as temperature increases in response to higher levels of CO2 (H2O amplification feedback).

But he's way off base with that reduction in O2 stuff, and CO2 is may be long-lived in the atmosphere, but it's definitely not "permanent."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:06 PM on 10/01/2009
- AJH I'm a Fan of AJH 16 fans permalink

There are multiple natural processes that remove CO2 from the atmosphere and even break down the structure rendering it into non co2 forms. To say it is a permanent gas is misleading at best. If that was true Al gore's chart would have been a permanent uptick in CO2 as animal respiration would naturally lead to ever increasing concentrations of CO2 and the nightmare scenario you outline. Rather than the natural global respiration pattern. That natural process can remove a finite amount is accurate making the global balance of emissions important.

Indeed there's a good bit of research going on based on those natural processes on how to accelerate removal of CO2 from the air by enhancing or technologically conducting such actions.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:17 PM on 10/01/2009
- lbsaltzman I'm a Fan of lbsaltzman 78 fans permalink

Animals respiring would never lead to more CO2 because plants close the loop and remove the CO2. However, burning fossil fuels is releasing sequestered carbon into the atmosphere and does increase the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. that additional CO2 is straining the ability of the oceans or plants to absorb the CO2. As the Earth heats and as humans foolishly cut down rain forests entire ecosystems will collapse and there will be less plants to remove the CO2. More feedback loops will come into play and methane gas frozen in the Arctic will begin to be released speeding up the warming of the planet to catastrophic levels.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:58 AM on 10/02/2009
- Exusian I'm a Fan of Exusian 27 fans permalink

To expand on AJH's comment, and to be fair to texfly, different natural carbon sinks and removal processes operate on different time scales and have different capacities.

Some carbon sinks, such as the ocean and biomass, absorb CO2 rapidly, however they do not permanently remove CO2 from the atmosphere since they also emit it to the atmosphere as part of the active carbon cycle. On the other hand, the processes that sequester carbon permanently, such as sedimentation of carbonate shell marine life and silicate rock weathering operate on long and very long time scales.

Although the residence time of any _individual_ molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere can be mesured in years or decades (~100 years or less) as it cycles into the fast but short term carbon sinks, it will take centuries for the vastly slower permanent sinks to remove from the active carbon cycle the excess carbon that we have already emitted. Because the short term sinks constanty exchange CO2 with the atmosphere, this means atmospheric CO2 levels will remain elevated for centuries (~1000 years) to come even if we were to halt further emissions of fossil carbon emissions today.

In that sense, CO2 might as well be "permanent" on a human generational scale.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:31 PM on 10/01/2009
- texfly I'm a Fan of texfly 17 fans permalink
photo

So few words allowed to say so much

I was referring to H2O vapor not liquid being thicker. As the atmosphere warms H2O will reach higher altitudes before condnsation.

As for CO2 being permanent I meant that realtive to the lifetime of H2O in the atmosphere is permanent - 10s of days relative to 100 years plus a tail near 1000 years fo CO2 before equilibartion with the oceans.

That said, I'd also argue that planet earth is not a closed system per se. The tropopause and inefficient mixing with the stratosphere will lead to the dimensional thermal expansion of the troposphere (volume). Mauna Loa data suggests that transpiration of CO2 by plant life uses a relatively constant amount of CO2 each year (7 ppm pk-pk cycle), yet CO2 continues to rise at a rate of 3 ppm/yr. With little additional C sink by plant life, a 100 years from now suggests CO2 near 700 ppm.

But, I don't see that scenerio in practice. I really think we will curb our glut for carbon within the next 30 years. If not us, then the EU and China will get the message across to the world. But it is shameful if we don't lead, since a conversion to renewable energy sources would be a stmulus to our economy that would make conservative's head spin. If you gave me $1 T, we'd be well on our way to that goal.

As for the O2 comment: A lame attempt at humor.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:46 PM on 10/01/2009
- sheila I'm a Fan of sheila 45 fans permalink

Sorry, but what exactly are the best practices and how will they be enforced and by when? This sounds more like a speech/placeholder than an actual regulatory framework that will actually make substantive change NOW.

Or am I missing something? She already announced the 6 "most deadly" GHGs they would be regulating, back in February (including electricity-transmission super-polluter SF6), and now she is announcing that they will regulate by some vague, feel-good TBD process, but still, no boots on the ground. At this rate, any meaningful regulation will take decades to implement.

Pardon my impatience, but the planet won't wait. It doesn't care that we had Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush so we got nothing done for the past 30 years. Time to make moves!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:11 PM on 10/01/2009

The EPAs action, if upheld will cost American jobs, pure and simple in a time of recession. But hey, we have the Stimulus Bill to take up the slack. A nation of pothole fillers! This is change we can believe in?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:28 PM on 10/01/2009
- Genep34 I'm a Fan of Genep34 56 fans permalink

Tea bag consciousness = high school

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:47 PM on 10/01/2009

If I hear this bogus, short-sighted argument one more time I'm going to puke.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:38 PM on 10/01/2009

Why so negative ? If you raise the cost of coal fired electricity 1 cent per KWhour, you could pay for the new clean up equipment for your smokestacks. In the process jobs are CREATED, for the manufacturing and construction of the new equipment. They could negotiate the slow phase in of this legislation and probably get govt. loans to help pay for it. But the problem is close minded poeple like you own the coal fire plants that are killing millions of trees and threatening peoples health. The real change won't happen until we all get educated and work together to improve our lives. Instead of just saying 'regulation of co2 will cost jobs', it's not that simple.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:23 AM on 10/02/2009
- lbsaltzman I'm a Fan of lbsaltzman 78 fans permalink

I think that developing and building the technology to scrub CO2 emissions and the technology to replace fossil fuels with sustainable renewables will net increase jobs. However, you miss the bigger point failure to act will be so unimaginably catastrophic that we have no choice whatever the price. If we had used the argument at the beginning of World War II that we couldn't afford the war the world would be in a sorry state right now.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:02 AM on 10/02/2009
- mogmaar I'm a Fan of mogmaar 34 fans permalink
photo

Bravo, Jackson. Keep up the good work

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:04 PM on 10/01/2009

It's about time the EPA started enforcing environmental laws. Eight years of republican misrule have done much damage to the planet.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:41 AM on 10/01/2009
- jimme I'm a Fan of jimme 11 fans permalink

Hey Inhofe, don't say Congress when it's actually just the repubs who'll fight this.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:16 AM on 10/01/2009
photo

The EPA has so many rules in place that it ignores, it may as well add another that pretends to protect the environment but really shields polluting corporations.

Good job.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:08 AM on 10/01/2009

I think that Ms. Jackson is doing a stunningly good job of turning that around.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:45 AM on 10/01/2009
photo

New rules for big polluters: Economy further damaged, more poor people. Thus another crisis we can exploit in the future.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:56 AM on 10/01/2009
- lbsaltzman I'm a Fan of lbsaltzman 78 fans permalink

If we don't stop global warming, we face far worse than an economic crisis, we face the potential collapse of technological civilization and put our survival as a species into question.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:29 AM on 10/01/2009
- Exusian I'm a Fan of Exusian 27 fans permalink

Just wait until you see how global shifts in atmospheric circulation and precipitation, sea level rise, and ocean acidification damage the economy and especially poor people.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:53 AM on 10/01/2009

The economy will be damaged EVEN FURTHER if we don't stop pollution. It's easier to pay the price now than to pay the BIG price later.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:42 AM on 10/01/2009
- Genep34 I'm a Fan of Genep34 56 fans permalink

Tea bag thought process - embarrassingly superficial.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:49 PM on 10/01/2009
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect