The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today declared greenhouse gases a threat to public health and welfare, a move that gives the Obama administration broad powers to regulate greenhouse gases without going through Congress.
EPA administrator Lisa Jackson said the proposed endangerment finding confirms that greenhouse gases pose a "serious problem" for current and future generations, who could face an increased frequency of droughts, air pollution and flooding, as well as a rise in sea level. The document represents a small but critical step on the path to regulation, and it must now go through a 60-day public comment period.
The public now has 60 days to comment on the proposed change.Pink / AlamyThe proposal came as no surprise given President Barack Obama's calls for action on global warming, but environmentalists and supporters in Congress nonetheless declared it a landmark decision.
"This is an important piece of basic honesty about the translation of science into its legal consequences," says David Doniger, who handles climate policy issues for the Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington DC.
The finding stems from an April 2007 Supreme Court ruling that carbon dioxide is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. That decision focused on automobile emissions but opened the doors to broader regulations. Only one thing was required of the EPA: a determination that carbon dioxide, then deemed a pollutant, also represented a threat.
Under President George W. Bush, EPA scientists and officials prepared an endangerment finding, but the administration delayed a final decision, leaving Obama with the final word.
Climate of change
On Friday, the EPA included in its endangerment finding not only carbon dioxide but also methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons — all of the greenhouse gases covered under the United Nations climate treaty. The document specifically cited greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles as a danger to public health.
California Democrat Barbara Boxer, who handles climate regulation in the Senate as chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, called the document eight years overdue. Still, she suggests that the "best and most flexible way" to deal with global warming is to enact a cap-and-trade bill in Congress. The first such bill this year was introduced in the House of Representatives last month by Henry Waxman (Democrat, California) and Ed Markey (Democrat, Massachusetts).
Many experts think a law passed by Congress would be less likely to face court challenges that could bog down or even reverse regulations at the last minute. And representatives of businesses and industry generally would prefer to work with lawmakers to craft a more palatable compromise rather than allowing an administration to craft rules behind closed doors.
Administration officials have repeatedly said that they would prefer to work with lawmakers on climate legislation. But they have also maintained the threat of direct regulation if Congress fails to enact legislation.
ADVERTISEMENT
Whether it moves forward of its own accord or is pushed by lawsuits from environmentalists, the agency is bound to pursue regulations if Congress doesn't act, says Jeff Holmstead, a former EPA official under Bush who now works for the Washington-based firm Bracewell and Giuliani. He says the question is whether those regulations will be effective.
Regulations designed to boost efficiency and eke out small gains might be feasible, Holmstead says, but setting up a massive program to curb emissions by 80 percent by mid-century could be both difficult and vulnerable to court challenge. "I think this is all about primarily increasing leverage on moderate Democrats and Republicans in Congress," he says.
Enviro-whinerism demands you wear a carbon entrapment rebreather backpack, surrender all your champagne, and never barbecue again. Remit to Caesar the Carbon Tax on Everything. 4x10^9 Third Worlders, 2000 Cal/day basal metabolism. C to CO2 /_\H(combustion) = -393.7 kJ/mole for MW 44.0095. (4x10^9)(2000 Cal/Day)(1000 cal/Cal)(365.242 days/year)(4.184 J/cal)(44.0095 g/mole)/(393,700 J/mole) = 1.4x10^15 g CO2 emitted/year from breathing alone. Add animals and cooking fires. There's your problem.
nice article
As the physician responsible for defining brain death of the first 40 Stanford heart transplants, using a test based on the physiologic stimulus of carbon dioxide failing to initiate spontaneous respiration through the range of physiologic hypocarbia, normocarbia and hypercarbia in the presence of normoxia, I find the government action declaring carbon dioxide a hazardous substance, lacking in intelligence, understanding or judgement.
Will electric power from coal-fired power plants become more expensive as carbon capture technologies are very expensive? Is there any analysis on the economic implications of the decision, as 50% of electricity in USA is generated by burning coal? Is it likely that anti nuclear enthusiasts may look at nuclear power more benignly now? Will nuclear power become a more attractive option now? K.S.Parthasarathy Ph.D
"Enviro-whinerism"? It has been quite clearly demonstrated that the greenhouse-gas driven global warming is a product of fossil fuel use, and legislation that regulates such use can only be beneficial for us in the long term. In my experience, people who combine blaming third world countries with insulting environmentally responsible legislation often lead highly consumptive lives themselves (with greenhouse gas production that is several orders of magnitude higher than any person from the third world), encouraged by an indignant sense of self-entitlement, which facilitates an unwillingness to admit fault or change their lifestyle. Ever heard someone say "Don't tell me to clean up my backyard when yours is full of junk"? If we want third world countries to clean things up, it is much less hypocritical if we start at home. Yes, increased greenhouse gas regulation will likely increase the cost of consumption (although I doubt this would apply to medical uses Dr. Beltran), which may have negative impacts on the economy, but how much more will it cost us if we continue to ignore the problem?