Archives

EPA staff members concluded that as much as $2 trillion in savings to consumers at the gas pump and elsewhere could be achieved if GHG regulations were implemented. (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2008/07/epa-on-greenhou.html)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/SUV_s_into_the_Sunset.jpgJanet Wilson - LA Times - July 11, 2008

Let the SUV reign.

This has the current Administrations signature all over it … as usual. -- Ed.

Responding to a U.S. Supreme Court order, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson said today that the Clean Air Act was "the wrong tool for addressing greenhouse gases" because it would be too costly to the American public, and said that Congress should move forward with passing legislation to tackle the issue instead.

The high court had ordered the EPA more than a year ago to determine if greenhouse gases were a danger to the public. If so, the justices said, under the Clean Air Act, the agency was required to develop regulations to reduce the risk.

Instead, Johnson signed what he said was an unprecedented 1,000-page document this morning that included letters from numerous White House environmental and economic agencies detailing how such regulations could harm major sectors of the economy.

"One point is clear," Johnson said. "The potential regulation of greenhouse gases under any portion of the Clean Air Act could result in an unprecedented expansion of EPA authority that would have a profound effect on virtually every sector of the economy and touch every household in the land." … http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2008/07/epa-on-greenhou.html

The document also includes a sharply revised version of a May draft by EPA staff members in which they concluded as much as $2 trillion in savings to consumers at the gas pump and elsewhere could be achieved if greenhouse gas regulations were implemented. That number was slashed to $830 billion, and the price of gas was calculated at $2 a gallon for the next 30 years. EPA press secretary Jonathan Schradar said he did not know why the numbers had been changed, but said extensive review of the earlier draft had been performed by agency staff members.

Can someone explain how the legislation will create the $800 billion - $2 trillion in savings?

Perhaps if we are forced to buy more fuel efficient cars?

I think legislation on this scale would not save us, but instead cost us $800 billion - $2 trillion a year.

This is the best page I've seen concerning global warming in a long time: http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

With regards to actually cutting emissions I suggest cutting consumption--in this case, have the automakers give us something more fuel-efficient. And I don't mean just small econoboxes--have a full line of family vehicles, trucks, and 4x4's with far better fuel efficiency, as well.