Archives

"Why has it been so difficult to convince you that your agency should protect the environment?" (http://www.kare11.com/news/national/national_article.aspx?storyid=252187)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/caphill.jpgH. Josef Hebert – AP – 4-24-07

The head of the Environmental Protection Agency repeatedly refused to say Tuesday how soon he will comply with a Supreme Court ruling and decide whether to regulate carbon dioxide, the leading gas linked to global warming.

EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, appearing before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, was asked repeatedly to provide a timetable for responding to the April 2 Supreme Court decisions. The court said the Clean Air Act makes clear the agency must regulate carbon dioxide if it's found that it endangers public health.

The legal argument has been settled and "now there's is an unmistakable green light to take action now," Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., the committee's chairman, told Johnson: "There is no excuse for delay."

But Johnson called the court's ruling complex and said he did not want to be tied to a specific timetable.

"I'm not going to be forced into making a snap decision," he later told reporters.

http://www.kare11.com/news/national/national_article.aspx?storyid=252187

I know, I know, don't judge a book by its cover. But still, there's something about it that just screams clueless flunky to me: http://www.kare11.com/assetpool/images/07424153842_johnson_epa_hd.jpg

Yeah, I could see this coming. Drag their heels time commences and things get messier.

But Johnson called the court's ruling complex and said he did not want to be tied to a specific timetable.
"I'm not going to be forced into making a snap decision," he later told reporters.


Translation: the graft payments from lobbyists have just started, and there's no rush to kill the Golden Goose.

Harry

Translation: I'm not going to be stupid and make a timetable not knowing the facts and look like a fool later for missing a deadline. I've seen countries that tried to do this to follow kyoto and they are all failing.

Is there are direct corrolation between FE and CO2 emissions?

To ask another way - is it always true a 60mpg vehicle will emit half the greenhouse gases of the same kind of vehicle that gets only 30mpg?

Assuming it's true, setting CO2 emissions standards is little different than CAFE fuel economy standards. Problem is, it's been a l-o-n-g time since the CAFE standards were upgraded.

Yes, I believe it is direct. You burn x about of gas and you get x amount of co2. I think diesles give off less co2 than gas burners.

I don’t know who to be more incensed at recently, the Big 3 in Vermont District Court, or our EPA—whom I expected better behavior from. Well so much for that.

Luckily, OMB Watch, a regulatory watchdog group is on top of things, and doing its job --barking:

Things could have stymied there, but Johnson chose to antagonize the committee further by abandoning reasonable thought. Since the Clean Air Act only requires the regulation of emissions harmful to the public, EPA would not have to regulate if it determined carbon not to be harmful. But that would be a ludicrous notion, wouldn't it? The LA Times reports: (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-greenhouse25apr25,1,4610800.story)

As to whether the EPA will regulate carbon emissions nationwide, Johnson said the agency must first determine whether greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health or welfare.

That remark drew criticism.

"Surely, you acknowledge that global warming does endanger public health," Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said.

Johnson refused to say whether he considered global warming the No. 1 environmental problem. That rankled Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).

"You astonish me," Whitehouse said.Amen to that, Mr. Whitehouse.
http://www.ombwatch.org/article/blogs/entry/3218/25

Thanks to OMB we also learn the EPA is stacking their scientific advisory deck with some “conflicted” scientists:

The EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) is supposed to be a group of scientists who independently analyze standards for the implementation of the Clean Air Act. Those standards are integral in ensuring progressive air pollution limitations that embody the latest scientific and technological breakthroughs. As Reg•Watch has reported, CASAC recently recommended tighter standards for smog, much to the chagrin of industry and EPA brass.

As though determined not to let that happen again, EPA has appointed to CASAC two members with industry ties. The new members will serve on the panel for nitrogen and sulfur oxides (NOx and SOx). The Center for Science in the Public Interest sums it up: (http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/watch/index.html#4)

Ignoring protests from consumer watchdog groups, the EPA has appointed two conflicted scientists to the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee primary advisory panel that will evaluate NOx and SOx pollution. In January, CSPI wrote to the EPA opposing the nomination of Richard B. Schlesinger, who has received financial support from the American Petroleum Institute, and Christian Seigneur, who works for Air Quality Division at Atmospheric & Environmental Research (AER) Inc., which is funded by three organizations (API, the Electric Power Research Institute and the Health Effects Institute) that receive money from industries that have a direct financial interest in the committee's decisions. The final roster did exclude Roger McClellan, the New Mexico-based industry consultant whom clean air advocates also protested.
http://www.ombwatch.org/article/blogs/entry/3212/18

Hi Tarabell:

___Great News item! And even more reason to vote out the current administration and its party with all these “Yes” men being input into any number of posts throughout the government. And I am a moderate independent!

___Good Luck

___Wayne

At some point I think it is inevitable that the fossil fuel industry will go the way of tobacco. Still around, still making money, still a player, but not really a part of the Republican party "team" in any publicly recognizable or dramatically influential way. It unfortunately might take many more alarm bells though.

I envision a day when both parties agree the climate crisis is this century's WWII, that concrete steps need to be taken to fight it, and the only debate is tactics. You know, like how both parties agree that lung cancer is caused by smoking, which justifies high cigarette taxes. Ain't no Inhofe calling that a hoax.

It seems likely that the big alarm bells in the US will continue to be drought in the west/midwest, & stronger hurricanes in the South. As luck would have it, the politicians from these states are the most likely to be skeptical.

Oh what a news day this is turning out to be -- This calls for one of those 'example of irony' drumrolls :D

CEO Mulally says global warming is real; creates new environmental post
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070424/AUTO01/704240346

Not that Ford is really moving mountains here. But if I were the EPA Administrator, I'd find this embarrassing.

I'm curious how people think the EPA should regulate CO2 or methane or other greenhouse gases.

A direct CAFE standard approach only hits one source, and doesn't really eliminate anything, but only slows the growth. My driving habits directly effect my transportation cost, but if every vehicle was tomorrow 100mpg that doesn't prevent global warming.

Coal plants don't have much room to improve, efficiencywize. Is mandated sequesturing appropriate. A timetable to eliminate coal? A timetable to sequesture all co2.

Natural gas is better than coal but still not by much if any co2 from fossil sources is unacceptable. And any is unacceptable in the long run by the courts interpretation. There can't be an acceptable minimum like mercury or lead, every additional pound of co2 is an accumulation of the problem.

Per person carbon usage rights or allocations with penalties or credits?

Criminalize incandescent bulbs? But flourescents cause co2 as well.

Is a carbon tax a simple fix, but with a long list of acceptions for need to avoid penalizing disadvantaged or not-for-profits?

Nothing short of complete elimination of fossil fuels addresses the problem that the court says must be regulated.

Who should the EPA fine or bring to court first?

I don't see easy answers in fulfilling the Supreme Courts order.

How about a timetable to when everyone must buy carbon offsets.;)

I'm curious how people think the EPA should regulate CO2 or methane or other greenhouse gases.

A direct CAFE standard approach only hits one source, and doesn't really eliminate anything, but only slows the growth. My driving habits directly effect my transportation cost, but if every vehicle was tomorrow 100mpg that doesn't prevent global warming.

Coal plants don't have much room to improve, efficiencywize. Is mandated sequesturing appropriate. A timetable to eliminate coal? A timetable to sequesture all co2.

Natural gas is better than coal but still not by much if any co2 from fossil sources is unacceptable. And any is unacceptable in the long run by the courts interpretation. There can't be an acceptable minimum like mercury or lead, every additional pound of co2 is an accumulation of the problem.

Per person carbon usage rights or allocations with penalties or credits?

Criminalize incandescent bulbs? But flourescents cause co2 as well.

Is a carbon tax a simple fix, but with a long list of acceptions for need to avoid penalizing disadvantaged or not-for-profits?

Nothing short of complete elimination of fossil fuels addresses the problem that the court says must be regulated.

Who should the EPA fine or bring to court first?

I don't see easy answers in fulfilling the Supreme Courts order.

How about a timetable to when everyone must buy carbon offsets.;)

On vehicles, raising the FE standards will automatically reduce the greenhouse gases.

On the light bulbs, it would be simple: require more efficiency in a period of say five years. That would effectively phase out incadescent bulbs while giving domestic manufactures time to ramp up CFBs.

I don't think very many are suggesting the EPA ban greenhouse emissions: Mass vs. EPA merely said the EPA was required by it's charter to regulate it. I don't expect serious regulation until the next administration.

I don't think very many are suggesting the EPA ban greenhouse emissions: Mass vs. EPA merely said the EPA was required by it's charter to regulate it. I don't expect serious regulation until the next administration.

What do you consider serious regulations?

This is clearly different than other EPA regulated substances, which require specific limits, derived from some sort of recognized methodology. Sulfur and other emissions can be reduced to nearly zero, but not co2.

Co2 doesn't fit the past mold.

Hi Worthywads:

___The EPA already collects CO2 as the basis for actual FE so regulating it would get rid of the DOT’s loopholes on FFV’s and over weight vehicles as well as the older EPA tests saying a vehicle received such and such when in the real world with the average non-aware driver comes up short by at least 20%. Today’s CAFÉ requires a fleet to achieve 27.5 for cars and 20 for trucks yet the entire US automobile fleet according to the EIA receives just 20.6? The shortfall comes about from any number of places but that need no longer be the case. If the law is 20 and 27.5, then it better be 20 and 27.5. As time moves forward, these numbers can be increased until such time we at least match Japan and Europe. The days of hand wringing are over. If the EPA set a time-table for Tier II/Bin5, then it darn well should be setting a time table for total CO2 emissions as well.

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Concerning CO2 regulations, expect the present administration to avoid a CO2 limit that changes anything. If the worst case vehicle is 15 tons of CO2 annually, I'd expect that to be as far as the Bush administration would go.

Since fuel economy and greenhouse emissions are highly corrolated for the same kind of engine, I'd expect "serious regulation" to be increasing the CAFE standards from 27.5 to 35mpg as was recently proposed.

Since we can not expect anything significant to come from this administration, each of us needs to do what we can to reduce our carbon foot print. And a good place to start is to burn less gasoline in our daily lives.

How much CO2 per gallon of diesel? Per gallon of alcohol?

Lets skip the CFBs and instead go for LEDs. That way we skip the mercury in the landfill problem.

Many of the countries in Europe have plans in place and are making much more progress than we are in reducing CO2. Seems they have even have the courage to think in terms of timetables.

Great post. Though I would go farther and say any administration, not just this one. I think it is more important for us to take matters into our own hands than just hope the next administration will be the one to step up.



Since we can not expect anything significant to come from this administration, each of us needs to do what we can to reduce our carbon foot print. And a good place to start is to burn less gasoline in our daily lives.

How much CO2 per gallon of diesel? Per gallon of alcohol?

Lets skip the CFBs and instead go for LEDs. That way we skip the mercury in the landfill problem.

Many of the countries in Europe have plans in place and are making much more progress than we are in reducing CO2. Seems they have even have the courage to think in terms of timetables.

I'd like to try LED's, but I don't see them at the home center. On line they are $35 each ?

I have not seen them in the stores either.