EPA declares greenhouse gases a danger to public health

[flyingfysh]

Source: www.msnbc.com

WASHINGTON - Having received White House backing, the Environmental Protection Agency declared Friday that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are a significant threat to human health and thus will be listed as pollutants under the Clean Air Act — a policy the Bush administration rejected.

The move could allow the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases, but it's more likely that the Obama administration will use the action to prod Congress to pass regulations around a system to cap and then trade emissions so that they are gradually lowered.

The EPA last month sent its proposal to the White House Office of Management and Budget, which reviewed and approved it. By law, the decision includes a public comment period before being finalized.

The EPA concluded that six greenhouse gases should be considered pollutants under the 1970 Clean Air Act, which is already used to curb emissions that cause acid rain, smog and soot.

Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30264214/

---

I just saw this on msnbc.com.

[underpants]

1. Looks like the energy folks are going to have to kick in some money too

"public comment" is of course the next step but this means the money is going to come pouring in to Congress. They are going to pay either way.

[Democracyinkind]

2. Breaking: Pope declares world to revole around the sun! Mysteries revealed!

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/31/world/after-350-years-vatican-says-galileo-was-right-it-moves.html


Isn't this like the same thing?

[ddss75]

3. Where is the electricity going to come from?

If we are capping emissions from coal and oil fired generators, and not building new nuclear facilities, and moving towards battery charged hybrid cars, where is the electricity going to come from? Has the EPA and congress put any thought to that? Despite what T. Boone Pickens says, we are still reliant on coal and oil for our energy.

[kestrel91316]

7. The biggest source of potential "energy", IIRC, is CONSERVATION.

We wouldn't need to worry near as much about where to get our energy if we quit using so damned much.

That precious "American Way Of Life" damned well better be negotiable. It's time for Americans to stop caring so much about their own personal pleasure and start caring about keeping civilization going.

[Delphinus]

10. The sun?

I've seen ads that say we could power the whole country by doing solar ... but my brain doesn't remember what state or how large.

[flyingfysh]

17. As Peter Paul & Mary said...

"The answer is blowing in the wind."

If we put generation windmills everywhere, we would have the electricity problem licked.

[CreekDog]

28. interesting quote on your profile:

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
-- Thomas Jefferson

[ddss75]

4. don't get me wrong

I work for the power company and I believe that the emissions should be regulated, as long as there is some viable option for us to use. Wind and solar should be developed, but they are decades away from being able to carry our load demands.

[jwirr]

5. You do have a point. That is why many people are talking about

real lifestyle changes such as mass transit use etc.

[ddss75]

6. scares me

It just seems to me that the government is big on proposing simple solutions to complex problems.

[jwirr]

8. Scares me to but change is coming and I think that someone has to

propose something or we will just all set here waiting for the sky to fall. Many of the big plans coming out of DC will be modified to fit the regional needs of the country. For instance solar may be the answer for Arizona while wind helps us here in MN. During the era of change we can cower or we can work at the grassroots to meld our personal plans into that of the nation. As for me and my house we are already working toward survival under any circumstances. But we are also not dropping out of the big picture.

As to nukes - there may be no new ones but the ones that are up now will still be producing some form of energy for a while yet. Likewise, the alternative sources that now exist. Our local power company has been incorporating these alternative for years now.

[ddss75]

13. Good point

I am just saying that while we are moving towards the future sources of energy, the focus should be on the technology that we have now. I handle the electrical lines on the Delmarva peninsula, and the only form of generation we have down here is coal fired plants. We cant even put in a CT because the natural gas pipelines are too small in diameter to handle the requirements. The transmission companies that handle the lines that go from the D.C. to Philadelphia hate us because since we are net importer, it is a drag on their voltage. We have the water resources that makes this area perfect for a nuclear plant. But I doubt that they will ever build one down here.

[bananas]

36. Here is what we do

Joe Romm worked at DOE during the Clinton administration,
he's been doing policy analysis for Climate Progress,
part of Podesta's think-tank Center for American Progress.
This is likely the direction Obama's policies will go.

Here's what he wrote about replacing coal in the U.S.:

http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/18/obama-replace-dirty-coal-nuclear-efficency-cogeneration-wind-solar-csp-biomass-cofiring/

If Obama stops dirty coal, as he must, what will replace it?

<snip>

So what do we do in the near term to meet the projected 1% annual increase in demand over the next decade while simultaneously reducing carbon emissions?

The answer is we do energy efficiency (including cogeneration), wind power, concentrated solar power (CSP), and biomass cofiring.

<snip>

Here's what we do globally over the next several decades: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x191961

[kestrel91316]

9. It's a damn sight better than proposing nothing at all, which is what we got

with Caligula.

[ddss75]

11. Who's Caligula?

Oh sorry stupid question.

[kestrel91316]

12. Caligula = * = He Whose Name We Must Not Speak For Fear of Giving Him

Power Over Us Again.

For the DU-challenged: GWB.

[CreekDog]

22. what would you have proposed EPA do instead?

do you understand what they did?

[CreekDog]

15. no he doesn't have a point, give me a break

do you think this is going to be implemented tomorrow?

the biggest strawman and obstacle is this type of thinking that "oh no, we have to shut all power plants tomorrow and replace them with solar energy...ohhhh noessss!!!"

:banghead:

[CreekDog]

14. So you think that this will immediately require all power to come from wind and solar?

because that is what you are suggesting and it's stupid.

are you a lobbyist? because it appears you created a total straw man argument out of what actually happened.

[ddss75]

16. That was not my point

My point was if they are capping the emissions, there should be some sort of plan to make up the slack. I am not a lobbyist, I am someone familiar with the realities of our electrical infrastructure. If you dont keep up supply up with the load demands, all you are going to do is burn the lines down. Electrical energy is going to be more vital to this country than oil in the very near future. We should be maximizing our production.

[CreekDog]

18. EPA doesn't get to decide something is not a pollutant simply because you worry what happens after

by the way.

[ddss75]

21. Right

And when the regulations go into effect and nobody took into account the side effects, and the electrical system that is really overburdened now collapses, what will happen then? Rolling blackouts that are a necessity, not just another ENRON money making scheme will not be fun. I AM NOT SAYING WE SHOULD NOT CAP THE GREEN HOUSES GASSES, I AM SAYING THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE SOME SORT OF PLAN FOR WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN WHEN THEY DO IT. Do you really want to count on the federal government to worry about that? Because our country, and Congress in particular has proven that we are really good about detail planning.

[CreekDog]

23. EPA can't do it your way

where in the Clean Air Act does it say that EPA can ignore a pollutant based on what you've said in your post?

[ddss75]

25. I am not talking about the EPA

I am talking about the federal government. The Department of Energy should be consulted on this matter and be advised that restrictions are coming that will directly influence the energy infrastructure. What I keep trying to say is that we should be working just as hard or harder to improve our electrical backbone. Obama ran on this position, infrastructure, and the need to improve it. Hell this is one way to put a lot of people back to work. A modern TVA style works program would dovetail hand in hand with the EPAs plans.

[CreekDog]

26. yes you said from the get-go "Has the EPA and congress put any thought to that?"

if you were mistaken, then that's okay because everybody makes mistakes sometimes.

[mvd]

19. Clear to most at DU, but nice to see this being govt. policy

Now maybe we can start saving the planet. Things like this are why I'm still strongly with Obama depite choices such as "moving on" for now in regard to torture prosecutions.

[mikelgb]

20. I fear the EPA is going to become the captain obvious dept

as they attempt to catch up with a decade of backpedaling

[scrinmaster]

24. They're going to list CO2 as a pollutant?

Looks like I exhale pollution every time I breathe.

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. And you pollute when you go to the toilet

It's nothing new that people pollute; what it means is that it has to be handled properly, just like sewage.

[Baby Snooks]

29. The air is killing us?

I thought it was all the second-hand smoke.

[CHIMO]

30. Washington takes first step toward climate change regulations

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The EPA on Friday declared that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases sent off by cars and many industrial plants “endanger public health and welfare,” setting the stage for regulating them under federal clean air laws.

The action by the Environmental Protection Agency marks the first step toward requiring power plants, cars and trucks to curtail their release of climate-changing pollution, especially carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said while the agency is prepared to move forward with regulations under the Clean Air Act, the Obama administration would prefer that Congress addressed the climate issue through “cap-and-trade” legislation limiting pollution that can contribute to global warming.

Limits on carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gases would have widespread economic and social impact, from requiring better fuel efficiency for automobiles to limiting emissions from power plants and industrial sources, changing the way the nation produces energy.



Read more: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090417.wclimate0417/BNStory/International/home

---

Finally some movement.

[maxsolomon]

31. Socialist Fascism!

Obama is gonna take yur Carbons!

[Muttocracy]

32. EPA's press release on it if anyone cares:

From: U.S. EPA
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 11:57 AM
Subject: Air News Release (HQ): EPA Finds Greenhouse Gases Pose Threat
to Public Health, Welfare

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

EPA Finds Greenhouse Gases Pose Threat to Public Health, Welfare

Proposed Finding Comes in Response to 2007 Supreme Court Ruling

Contact: Cathy Milbourn, 202-564-4355 / 7849 / [e-mail]

(Washington, D.C. - April 17, 2009) After a thorough scientific review
ordered in 2007 by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Environmental Protection
Agency issued a proposed finding Friday that greenhouse gases contribute
to air pollution that may endanger public health or welfare.

The proposed finding, which now moves to a public comment period,
identified six greenhouse gases that pose a potential threat.

"This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious
problem now and for future generations. Fortunately, it follows
President Obama's call for a low carbon economy and strong leadership in
Congress on clean energy and climate legislation," said Administrator
Lisa P. Jackson. "This pollution problem has a solution - one that will
create millions of green jobs and end our country's dependence on
foreign oil."

As the proposed endangerment finding states, "In both magnitude and
probability, climate change is an enormous problem. The greenhouse
gases that are responsible for it endanger public health and welfare
within the meaning of the Clean Air Act."

EPA's proposed endangerment finding is based on rigorous, peer-reviewed
scientific analysis of six gases - carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous
oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride -
that have been the subject of intensive analysis by scientists around
the world. The science clearly shows that concentrations of these gases
are at unprecedented levels as a result of human emissions, and these
high levels are very likely the cause of the increase in average
temperatures and other changes in our climate.

The scientific analysis also confirms that climate change impacts human
health in several ways. Findings from a recent EPA study titled
"Assessment of the Impacts of Global Change on Regional U.S. Air
Quality: A Synthesis of Climate Change Impacts on Ground-Level Ozone,"
for example, suggest that climate change may lead to higher
concentrations of ground-level ozone, a harmful pollutant. Additional
impacts of climate change include, but are not limited to:

* increased drought;
* more heavy downpours and flooding;
* more frequent and intense heat waves and wildfires;
* greater sea level rise;
* more intense storms; and
* harm to water resources, agriculture, wildlife and ecosystems.


In proposing the finding, Administrator Jackson also took into account
the disproportionate impact climate change has on the health of certain
segments of the population, such as the poor, the very young, the
elderly, those already in poor health, the disabled, those living alone
and/or indigenous populations dependent on one or a few resources.

In addition to threatening human health, the analysis finds that climate
change also has serious national security implications. Consistent with
this proposed finding, in 2007, 11 retired U.S. generals and admirals
signed a report from the Center for a New American Security stating that
climate change "presents significant national security challenges for
the United States." Escalating violence in destabilized regions can be
incited and fomented by an increasing scarcity of resources - including
water. This lack of resources, driven by climate change patterns, then
drives massive migration to more stabilized regions of the world.

The proposed endangerment finding now enters the public comment period,
which is the next step in the deliberative process EPA must undertake
before issuing final findings. Today's proposed finding does not include
any proposed regulations. Before taking any steps to reduce greenhouse
gases under the Clean Air Act, EPA would conduct an appropriate process
and consider stakeholder input. Notwithstanding this required
regulatory process, both President Obama and Administrator Jackson have
repeatedly indicated their preference for comprehensive legislation to
address this issue and create the framework for a clean energy economy.

More information: http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html

R097

[Towlie]

33. Greenhouse gases pose health hazard, EPA says

Source: CNN

Six heat-trapping gases that contribute to air pollution pose potential health hazards, the Environmental Protection Agency said Friday in a landmark announcement that could lead to regulation of the gases. "This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem," EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said.

The gases -- carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride -- have been the subject of intensive analysis by scientists around the world, the EPA said. The U.S. Supreme Court ordered the EPA's scientific review in 2007.

"This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations," EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said in a release, later adding, "The science clearly shows that concentrations of these gases are at unprecedented levels as a result of human emissions, and these high levels are very likely the cause of the increase in average temperatures and other changes in our climate."

(snip)

"Today's action by the EPA is the beginning of a regulatory barrage that will destroy jobs, raise energy prices for consumers and undermine America's global competitiveness," said Sen. James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma...

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/04/17/greenhouse.gas.hazard.epa/

---

Who didn't see that last part coming? And I'm sure that's only the beginning.

Of course Republicans will deny it! Everyone knows that Republicans don't believe in science.

[jamieque]

34. Of course the Republicans...

will deny it...

They always deny anything that affects their profit margins. These assholes don't care about anything but money in which they trust. Everything they do is for some political gain... nothing more. I hope people are smart enough to see through any of the BS they are currently spouting.

[freedomnorth]

35. Only conservatives deny everything... n/t.