Jean-Louis Santini Yahoo News 17 Apr 09;
WASHINGTON (AFP) – The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shifted course Friday by deeming carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases a health risk, in a landmark turnaround that could impact climate change regulation.
"After a thorough scientific review ordered in 2007 by the US Supreme Court, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a proposed finding ... that greenhouse gases contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health or welfare," said an EPA statement posted on the agency website.
The move, which could open the door to stronger regulation on greenhouse gas emissions, marks a significant shift on climate change from the previous presidency of George W. Bush, which failed to heed EPA warnings on the possibly devastating consequences of inaction.
"This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations. Fortunately, it follows President (Barack) Obama's call for a low carbon economy and strong leadership in Congress on clean energy and climate legislation," said EPA Administrator Lisa 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,'" she added.
Five out of the nine Supreme Court justices ruled in April 2007 that carbon dioxide was a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, in place since 1970.
They ordered the EPA to decide if the greenhouse gas endangered public health and welfare and said that if a so-called endangerment finding was made, the agency must draft rules to reduce vehicle emissions of carbon dioxide.
In December 2007, the EPA sent a draft finding to the Bush White House, presenting evidence that CO2 did endanger public welfare.
But the Bush administration failed to acknowledge the report and spent the remainder of its tenure resisting the Supreme Court decision.
Many environmental groups have criticized Bush's refusal for eight years to take action over the crisis and have accused his administration of manipulating or ignoring science to pursue inaction at any cost.
The EPA's action "is a wake-up call for national policy solutions that secure our economic and environmental future," said Vickie Patton, deputy general counsel at the Environmental Defense Fund, which called the agency's move an "historic step."
The Union of Concerned Scientists, a leading non-profit group on climate issues, said the EPA has acknowledged the "massive body of scientific research that shows that climate change is harming our health and environment."
Heat waves, the spread of tropical diseases and worsening air quality are all threats the EPA can help address, said the organization.
Opposing the EPA's endangerment findings, however, the fossil fuel-reliant industry representative Electric Reliability Coordinating Council (ERCC) said the development could have considerable, negative impacts on traditional industries throughout the United States.
"If reliance upon coal-fired generation were to diminish by a third as a result of EPA regulatory programs, GDP would be reduced by about 166 billion dollars, household incomes by 64 billion dollars, and employment by 1.2 million jobs," said ERCC director Scott Segal.
"To the extent green jobs are created, they would come only after severe trauma to the economy and would likely be lower-paying than the manufacturing jobs they displace."
Earlier this month in Prague, Obama vowed that the United States was "now ready to lead" on climate change.
The US Congress is examining a draft bill for clean energy development that aims to cut carbon emissions by 20 percent from their 2005 levels by 2020 and boost reliance on renewable sources of energy.
But although the US targets were unheard of before Obama took over from Bush, they were given an extremely cautious welcome in Europe because the base year for comparisons is 15 years after that of the EU.
The new US goals, though welcome, represent just a five to six percent reduction using the EU's baseline of 1990, EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said earlier this month. German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel described them as "not enough."
New pollution limits seen for cars, big plants
H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press Yahoo News 18 Apr 09;
WASHINGTON – Cars, power plants and factories could all soon face much tougher pollution limits after a government declaration Friday setting the stage for the first federal regulation of gases blamed for global warming.
The Environmental Protection Agency took a big step in that direction, concluding that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases are a major hazard to Americans' health. That was a reversal from the Bush administration, which resisted such a conclusion and said it would be costly for companies to meet new emission limits and therefore could harm the national economy.
"In both magnitude and probability, climate change is an enormous problem (and) the greenhouse gases that are responsible for it endanger public health and welfare," said the EPA, concluding the dangers warrant action under federal air pollution laws.
It was the first time the federal government had said it was ready to use the Clean Air Act to require power plants, cars and trucks to curtail their release of climate-changing pollution, especially carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.
The agency said the science pointing to man-made pollution as a cause of global warming is "compelling and overwhelming." It also said tailpipe emissions from motor vehicles contribute.
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson cautioned that regulations are not imminent and made clear that the Obama administration would prefer that Congress address the climate issue through a broader "cap-and-trade" program that would limit heat-trapping pollution.
But she said it was clear from the EPA analysis "that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations" and steps are needed to curtail the impact.
Even if actual regulations are not imminent, the EPA action was seen as likely to encourage action on Capitol Hill.
It's "a wake-up call for Congress" — deal with it directly through legislation or let the EPA regulate, said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who chairs the Senate committee dealing with climate legislation. If Congress doesn't move, Boxer said she would press EPA to taker swift action.
Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., whose House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hopes to craft legislation in the coming weeks, called the EPA action "a game changer."
"It now changes the playing field with respect to legislation. It's now no longer doing a bill or doing nothing. It is now a choice between regulation and legislation," said Markey.
Republicans and some centrist Democrats have been critical of proposed cap-and-trade climate legislation, arguing it would lead to much higher energy prices. Such a measure could impose an economy-wide limit on greenhouse gas emissions but let individual companies or plants trade emission allowances among each other to mitigate costs.
House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio called EPA's move toward regulation "a backdoor attempt to enact a national energy tax that will have a crushing impact on consumers, jobs and our economy."
But environmentalists called the EPA action a watershed in addressing climate change.
"It's momentous. This has enormous legal significance. It is the first time the federal government has said officially the science is real, the danger is real and in this case that pollution from cars contributes to it," said David Doniger, climate policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an advocacy group.
Reaction from energy intensive industries was quick and critical.
"The proposed endangerment finding poses an endangerment to the American economy and every American family," declared Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute.
A spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute, Dan Riedinger, said under the EPA approach "the process won't be pretty ... fraught with uncertainty." The group, which represents investor-owned electric utilities, prefers action by Congress rather than federal regulators.
The Bush administration strongly opposed using the Clean Air Act to address climate change and stalled on producing the so-called "endangerment finding" that had been ordered by the Supreme Court two years ago when it declared greenhouse gases pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
The court case, brought by Massachusetts, focused only on emissions from automobiles. But it is widely assumed that if the EPA must regulate emissions from cars and trucks, it will have no choice but to control similar pollution from power plants and industrial sources.
The EPA wants to unleash a "regulatory barrage that will destroy jobs, raise energy prices for consumers, and undermine America's global competitiveness," complained Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., one of Congress' most vocal skeptics of global warming.
In addition to carbon dioxide, a product of burning fossil fuels, the EPA finding covers five other emissions that scientists believe are warming the earth when they concentrate in the atmosphere: Methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).
U.S. clears way to regulate greenhouse gases
Deborah Zabarenko and Tom Doggett, Reuters 17 Apr 09;
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration opened the way to regulating U.S. greenhouse gas emissions on Friday by declaring climate-warming pollution a danger to human health and welfare, in a sharp policy shift from the Bush administration.
Environmental activists and their supporters in Congress were jubilant and industry groups were wary at the news of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's move. The White House said President Barack Obama would prefer legislation over administrative action to curb greenhouse emissions.
Congress is already considering a bill to cut emissions of carbon dioxide, which is emitted by cars, coal-fired power plants and oil refineries, among other sources.
EPA's declaration was seen as a strong signal to the international community that the United States intends to seriously combat climate change.
In its announcement, the EPA said, "greenhouse gases in the atmosphere endanger the public health and welfare of current and future generations" and human activities spur global warming.
"This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations," said EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. "Fortunately, it follows President Obama's call for a low carbon economy and strong leadership in Congress on clean energy and climate legislation,"
"The president has made clear his strong preference that Congress act to pass comprehensive legislation rather than address the climate challenge through administrative action," a White House official said, noting that Obama has repeatedly called for "a bill to provide for market-based solutions to reduce carbon pollution."
The EPA's endangerment finding said high atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases "are the unambiguous result of human emissions, and are very likely the cause of the observed increase in average temperatures and other climatic changes." The document is available online at www.epa.gov.
The EPA's finding is essential for the U.S. government to regulate climate-warming emissions like carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act. Regulation is not automatically triggered by the finding -- there will be a 60-day comment period.
But as that period proceeds, legislation is moving through Congress aimed at cutting carbon dioxide emissions with a cap-and-trade system, which would let those companies that emit more than the limit buy credits from those that emit less.
MAJOR SHIFT FROM BUSH
EPA scientists last year offered evidence of the health hazards of greenhouse emissions, but the Bush administration took no action. It opposed across-the-board mandatory regulation of climate-warming pollution, saying this would hurt the U.S. economy.
Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat who shepherded climate legislation to the Senate floor last year, called the EPA's finding "long overdue."
"We have lost eight years in this fight," Boxer said in a statement. "... The best and most flexible way to deal with this serious problem is to enact a market-based cap-and-trade system which will help us make the transition to clean energy and will bring us innovation and strong economic growth."
"At long last, EPA is officially recognizing that carbon pollution is leading to killer heat waves, stronger hurricanes, higher smog levels and many other threats to human health," said David Doniger at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
But the National Association of Manufacturers said trying to regulate greenhouse emissions with the Clean Air Act would "further burden an ailing economy while doing little or nothing to improve the environment."
"This proposal will cost jobs. It is the worst possible time to be proposing rules that will drive up the cost of energy to no valid purpose," NAM President John Engler said.
Steve Seidel of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change said the EPA announcement is an important message to the international community, which is set to meet in Copenhagen in December to craft a follow-up agreement to the carbon-capping Kyoto Protocol.
"This decision sends a strong signal to the international community that the United States is moving forward to regulate greenhouse gas emissions," Seidel said by telephone.
However, he said this move alone is no guarantee of success in Copenhagen. Participants in that meeting will also look for progress in the U.S. Congress, and for movement from other developed and developing countries.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled two years ago that the EPA has the authority to make these regulations if human health is threatened by global warming pollution, but no regulations went forward during the Bush administration.
Carbon dioxide, one of several greenhouse gases that spur global warming, is emitted by natural and industrial sources, including fossil-fueled vehicles, coal-fired power plants and oil refineries.
(Additional reporting by Tim Gardner and Ayesha Rascoe; Editing by Eric Walsh)
EPA says CO2 emissions endanger human health
Ayesha Rascoe, Reuters 17 Apr 09;
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Environmental Protection Agency on Friday unveiled a finding that greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare, opening the door to federal regulation of carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
The finding does not "automatically trigger" new carbon rules but could allow the EPA to move forward with limiting greenhouse gas emissions under the federal Clean Air Act.
Rising levels of greenhouse gases "are the unambiguous result of human emissions, and are very likely the cause of the observed increase in average temperatures and other climatic changes," the EPA proposal said.
Environmentalists applauded the decision, while affected industries expressed concern.
* "With this step, Administrator Lisa Jackson and the Obama administration have gone a long way to restore respect for both science and law," David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council said in a statement.
* Business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have warned that the U.S. economy could grind to a halt if the EPA were to begin regulating carbon.
Bruce Braine, a vice president for policy analysis at American Electric Power, the country's largest burner of coal for electricity generation, said that AEP would rather see greenhouse gases regulated by legislation.
"The Clean Air Act was never really designed with carbon in mind, it was designed for air pollutants in the conventional sense," like acid rain and smog components and mercury and lead that are easier to control on a local basis, he said.
* Joe Mendelson, global warming policy director at the National Wildlife Federation, said "the EPA decision is historic and a game-changer for climate policy that will have political and policy repercussions domestically and abroad."
"This is the single largest step the federal government has taken to fight climate change," he said.
* Charles Drevna, president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, said "such regulation would have an enormous impact on every facet of the economy, businesses large and small, as well as on the general population."
"Before moving forward with regulation, the United States must ensure that other major global contributors are similarly committed to reducing their ambient greenhouse gas concentrations," he added.
* The move to regulate carbon through the EPA will likely place pressure on Congress to pass legislation to limit greenhouse gases. The House Energy and Commerce Committee hopes to clear such a bill by the end of May.
With the economy faltering, such legislation faces an uphill battle as detractors say it will raise energy costs for businesses and consumers.
* The White House has said it prefers for Congress to pass a bill that caps carbon emissions and requires companies to acquire permits to release carbon into the atmosphere.
"Today's action by EPA should give the Obama administration more ammunition to get Congress to do its job correctly," said Frank O'Donnell, president of environmental group Clean Air Watch. "The Obama administration now has the legal equivalent of a .44 Magnum (firearm). The bullets aren't loaded yet, but they could be."
* The EPA will accept public comments on the finding for 60 days. The agency will also hold two hearings on the proposal.
(Additional Reporting by Tim Gardner; Editing by Paul Simao)
Read more!
Posts
visitors since Nov 07