EPA cleared to regulate U.S. emissions as Congress stalls

[doctordog]

You better be saving some money as jobs will be at stake and energy cost will rise!

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Monday cleared the way for regulation of greenhouse gases without new laws passed by Congress, reflecting President Barack Obama's commitment to act on climate change as a major summit opened in Copenhagen.

The EPA ruling that greenhouse gases endanger human health, widely expected after it issued a preliminary finding earlier this year, will allow the agency to regulate planet-warming gases even without legislation in Congress.

The agency could begin to make rules as soon as next year to regulate emissions from vehicle tailpipes, power utilities and heavy industry under existing laws.

Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress will still pursue legislation in Congress, which has been slow to act. But the EPA move gave a timely push to the president's aims of securing short-term limits to harmful emissions.

It was expected to inject some optimism into the two-week United Nations meeting in Copenhagen, which Obama is due to attend next week, but was criticized by some U.S. business groups who fear it could push up costs.

"EPA has finalized its endangerment finding on greenhouse gas pollution and is now authorized and obligated to make reasonable efforts to reduce greenhouse pollutants," said Lisa Jackson, the EPA administrator. "This administration will not ignore science or the law any longer."

The Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that the EPA had the right to regulate emissions of the gases under the Clean Air Act. But under the administration of former President George W. Bush, the EPA said Congress was the right place to frame action.

Business groups said the EPA announcement would hurt the economy and endanger jobs just as the country emerges from a deep recession.

Legislation by Congress would be more palatable politically for Obama, because it would represent a compromise between business, politicians and other interests rather than through an imposed ruling.

STRONGER HAND IN COPENHAGEN

The EPA ruling applies to six gases scientists say contribute to global warming, including the main one, carbon dioxide.

There had been fears that Obama, who has made fighting climate change one of his priorities, would arrive almost empty handed at the U.N. conference because climate legislation has stalled in Congress.

"The EPA move strengthens Obama's hand at Copenhagen," said Joe Mendelson, global warming policy director at the National Wildlife Federation. "It gives him additional authority that if Congress doesn't pass climate legislation, the agency can put the country on the path to meet his climate goals."

Obama will pledge at Copenhagen that the United States, the world's second largest emitter of greenhouse gases, will cut emissions by roughly 17 percent by 2020 from 2005 levels.

World leaders hope to reach an agreement at the meeting on getting rich and developing countries to share the burden in fighting climate change.

The climate bill has been delayed in the U.S. Senate by a debate over a sweeping reform of healthcare, but lawmakers hope to pass a bill in the spring. Climate legislation passed narrowly in the House of Representatives in June.

The Obama administration has always said it prefers legislation over action by the EPA.

CONGRESSIONAL ACTION

If the EPA acts alone it could face a slew of legal challenges, including from business groups who say the action would overstep the administration's authority, as well as from environmentalists who seek stronger steps.

But the administration had pressed the EPA to prod business to support efforts in Congress, and to show the world Washington is committed to fighting climate change.

Democratic Senator John Kerry said the EPA move was meant to spur Congress to act. But he said "imposed regulations by definition will not include the job protections and investment incentives we are proposing in the Senate today."

Republicans said the move was equivalent to imposing an energy tax. "By seeking to sharply curtail carbon dioxide (and thus energy usage), the EPA is in effect working to decrease economic activity," the Republican Study Committee said.

One business group was quick to criticize the EPA.

Keith McCoy, vice president of energy policy at the National Association of Manufacturers said the EPA was moving forward with an agenda that will put additional burdens on manufacturers, cost jobs and drive up the price of energy."

The EPA decision, which now will be open for public review, does not preclude legislation. Any new regulations could take a long time to implement, giving Congress room to act.

Still, big industry could learn about changes soon. Jackson said car makers will know by the end of March about required increases in fuel economy standards for cars built for the 2012 model year.

"All industries will be called upon to reduce carbon emissions," said Dave McCurdy, chief executive of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

An administration proposal unveiled in September would require a boost fuel efficiency by 40 percent by 2016 and aim to cut carbon emissions by 21 percent by 2030. (Additional reporting by Ayesha Rascoe, Roberta Rampton, Deborah Zabarenko, Tom Doggett, Tom Ferraro in Washington and Richard Cowan in Copenhagen; Editing by Simon Denyer and Chris Wilson)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091207/pl_nm/us_usa_climate_epa

[Pat]

Let's build more nuclear power plants.

[doctordog]

Let's build more nuclear power plants.

I agree, it is the most sensible thing to do.:thumbsup:

[Zebulon0351]

Hmm... Iran said that too.. do as I say not as I do huh?

[doctordog]

Hmm... Iran said that too.. do as I say not as I do huh?

you can always depend on the terrorist lovers:thumbsup:

[Zebulon0351]

you can always depend on the terrorist lovers:thumbsup:

Iran has never pranced around in our region and building forces in and invading countries while trying to secure our natural resources... and if they really are a terrorists you would think Cheney & Co. would have gone there instead of looking for the non-existent program in Iraq.

[Independent Harry]

Nuclear plants still create massive problems of their own. Such as what to do with the spent fuel.

But this is a good thing. This is part of the problem and Obama is taking steps to fix it. With or without the congress dragging its feet. I applaud him for this decision.

[doctordog]

Nuclear plants still create massive problems of their own. Such as what to do with the spent fuel.

But this is a good thing. This is part of the problem and Obama is taking steps to fix it. With or without the congress dragging its feet. I applaud him for this decision.

We will see if you are still clapping when reading by candle light.:thumbsup:

[Zebulon0351]

Nothing wrong at all with making steps to energy efficiency.

[Independent Harry]

We will see if you are still clapping when reading by candle light.:thumbsup:

What if I already read by candlelight? Maybe I enjoy lighting candles at night...yeah, the stricter EPA guidelines are going to turn this country back into the stone age, where no one but the uber wealthy can afford power...I'm sure...talk about being a sensationalist...I guess you get it from Faux News though...they love spinning shit into crazy scenarios that aren't going to happen...

[doctordog]

What if I already read by candlelight? Maybe I enjoy lighting candles at night...yeah, the stricter EPA guidelines are going to turn this country back into the stone age, where no one but the uber wealthy can afford power...I'm sure...talk about being a sensationalist...I guess you get it from Faux News though...they love spinning shit into crazy scenarios that aren't going to happen...

Keep guessing, it shows your lack of knowledge in manufacturing cost and energy cost.:thumbsup:

[Independent Harry]

Keep guessing, it shows your lack of knowledge in manufacturing cost and energy cost.:thumbsup:

lol, I love when people tell me I am devoid of knowledge in something when they post an article that does not show projected cost of such regulations, what the regulations will even be, other than being stricter and then demonstrate their knowledge of the annualized increase in cost over the period of time it will take to bankrupt the country and send us back to the stone ages.

Your response simply shows your lack of abilty to even think rationally and not react emotionally to every situation you have been trained to.

[doctordog]

lol, I love when people tell me I am devoid of knowledge in something when they post an article that does not show projected cost of such regulations, what the regulations will even be, other than being stricter and then demonstrate their knowledge of the annualized increase in cost over the period of time it will take to bankrupt the country and send us back to the stone ages.

Your response simply shows your lack of abilty to even think rationally and not react emotionally to every situation you have been trained to.

yet another vague response by someone that doesn't understand cost, ROI, and energy cost related to goods and services. You deserve those candles.:thumbsup:

[Parade Rain]

yet another vague response

It wasn't at all "vague". It was just over your head.

[doctordog]

It wasn't at all "vague". It was just over your head.

Did you say something Suzy homemaker by day and murder advocate at night?

[Parade Rain]

Did you say something Suzy homemaker by day and murder advocate at night?

Nothing you'd have the ability to grasp. Run along now. :D

[doctordog]

Nothing you'd have the ability to grasp. Run along now. :D

Dadakarma, is Rumble slow again, that is a shame, but not a surprise.

[Parade Rain]

Dadakarma, is Rumble slow again, that is a shame, but not a surprise.

Somewhat. We're a small group. No shame about lulls in the discussions.

[doctordog]

Somewhat. We're a small group. No shame about lulls in the discussions.

You are a cult, just call it like it is.:thumbsup:

[Parade Rain]

You are a cult, just call it like it is.:thumbsup:

You go ahead and call it anything you want. It sucks to be the outcast; I understand.

[Independent Harry]

yet another vague response by someone that doesn't understand cost, ROI, and energy cost related to goods and services. You deserve those candles.:thumbsup:

seriously wayers? That wasn't vague in the least. I simply asked you to back up your assertion, with some hard data...and you chose not to. Please by all means if you can prove to me that these EPA regulations (that we don't even know what they are going to be exactly) are going to run our energy based economy into the ground to the point we have to go back to candles and fire, then enlighten me on the projected increase and costs and over what time frame this is going to happen...you made the claim, it's up to you to support it. I can't disprove a negative...especially when the rules aren't even in place and we don't know what effect they will have on actual cost.

[doctordog]

You go ahead and call it anything you want. It sucks to be the outcast; I understand.

that is why you are here, thanks for coming clean.

Now, enough of your Eman derailment, do you have anything intelligent to say about the thread topic?

[doctordog]

seriously wayers? That wasn't vague in the least. I simply asked you to back up your assertion, with some hard data...and you chose not to. Please by all means if you can prove to me that these EPA regulations (that we don't even know what they are going to be exactly) are going to run our energy based economy into the ground to the point we have to go back to candles and fire, then enlighten me on the projected increase and costs and over what time frame this is going to happen...you made the claim, it's up to you to support it. I can't disprove a negative...especially when the rules aren't even in place and we don't know what effect they will have on actual cost.

It was in the first post, all you had to do was read, you failed as usual.

[Parade Rain]

that is why you are here, thanks for coming clean.

Now, enough of your Eman derailment, do you have anything intelligent to say about the thread topic?

Nope! Just killin' time.

[Independent Harry]

It was in the first post, all you had to do was read, you failed as usual.

An administration proposal unveiled in September would require a boost fuel efficiency by 40 percent by 2016 and aim to cut carbon emissions by 21 percent by 2030.

You mean this little pearl, in all that wording. Wayer's please explain to us the impact that this will have on our economy and show us how we will be reading by candlelight due to these increase in efficiency and decreases in carbon emissions in the timeframe specified...as well, please let us know in what time fram we will be reading by candlelight based on your projections...

[doctordog]

An administration proposal unveiled in September would require a boost fuel efficiency by 40 percent by 2016 and aim to cut carbon emissions by 21 percent by 2030.

You mean this little pearl, in all that wording. Wayer's please explain to us the impact that this will have on our economy and show us how we will be reading by candlelight due to these increase in efficiency and decreases in carbon emissions in the timeframe specified...as well, please let us know in what time fram we will be reading by candlelight based on your projections...

Go back and read again Ray, the part about manufacturing and energy cost, maybe after 3 times you will get it, but I doubt it.

[Independent Harry]

Business groups said the EPA announcement would hurt the economy and endanger jobs just as the country emerges from a deep recession

Republicans said the move was equivalent to imposing an energy tax. "By seeking to sharply curtail carbon dioxide (and thus energy usage), the EPA is in effect working to decrease economic activity," the Republican Study Committee said.

You mean this stuff Wayers? Again, no hard numbers, you are basing your information on opinions...did they show how this will be an energy tax? did they show how we will all be reading by candlelight? Again, you made a statement that is not backed up by this article. We have no hard data, just some comments made by people that may or may not be true. Do you understand the difference between opinions and hard data? Please back up your assertion...

[doctordog]

Business groups said the EPA announcement would hurt the economy and endanger jobs just as the country emerges from a deep recession

Republicans said the move was equivalent to imposing an energy tax. "By seeking to sharply curtail carbon dioxide (and thus energy usage), the EPA is in effect working to decrease economic activity," the Republican Study Committee said.

You mean this stuff Wayers? Again, no hard numbers, you are basing your information on opinions...did they show how this will be an energy tax? did they show how we will all be reading by candlelight? Again, you made a statement that is not backed up by this article. We have no hard data, just some comments made by people that may or may not be true. Do you understand the difference between opinions and hard data? Please back up your assertion...

If you are in energy or other types of manufacturing you know it is true. You obviously aren't. Get used to your candles pea brain.:thumbsup:

[Independent Harry]

If you are in energy or other types of manufacturing you know it is true. You obviously aren't. Get used to your candles pea brain.:thumbsup:

So there it is...you have an innate knowing of truth that others lack. Thank you, I will keep reminding myself of the god like powers you posses when it comes to energy, miranda law, and any other opinion piece you beliieve in. no need to let numbers and facts get in your way wayers...

[doctordog]

So there it is...you have an innate knowing of truth that others lack. Thank you, I will keep reminding myself of the god like powers you posses when it comes to energy, miranda law, and any other opinion piece you beliieve in. no need to let numbers and facts get in your way wayers...

It is common sense Harry, DO you realize the millions of dollars that will have to be spent to see those kinds of reductions? Do you realize how many tons/day utility companies use to produce electricty? Do you realize the tons/day in coal and oil used by other industry for process? Are you blind to the economy now? How many extra millions in CAPEX without consumer spending do you think companies can absorb?

Damn man this isn't rocket science.

[Independent Harry]

It is common sense Harry, DO you realize the millions of dollars that will have to be spent to see those kinds of reductions? Do you realize how many tons/day utility companies use to produce electricty? Do you realize the tons/day in coal and oil used by other industry for process? Are you blind to the economy now? How many extra millions in CAPEX without consumer spending do you think companies can absorb?

Damn man this isn't rocket science.

That's a given, I didn't say it woulnd't raise costs. I simply asked you to back up your assertion that we would be living again without electricity and reading by candlelight and over what time frame you predicted that would happen. Cost of living is increased on a daily basis due to inflation in all aspects of our economy, it's a built in economic factor. I'm simply asking you to show me, with hard facts, no opinions, how these regulations will be such a detriment to our economy we will end up back in the stone age. Is my question really that hard to understand?

[CosmicRocker]

George Will: Another last chance for Earth
Washington Post Writers Group
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,548282.column
December 7, 2009

With 20,000 delegates, advocates and journalists jetting to Copenhagen for planet Earth's last chance, the carbon footprint of the global-warming summit will be the only impressive consequence of the climate-change meeting.
Its organizers had hoped it would produce binding caps on emissions, global taxation to redistribute trillions of dollars, and micromanagement of everyone's choices.

China, nimble at the politics of pretending that is characteristic of climate-change theater, promises only to reduce its "carbon intensity" — carbon emissions per unit of production. So China's emissions will rise.
Barack Obama, understanding the histrionics required in climate-change debates, promises that U.S. emissions in 2050 will be 83 percent below 2005 levels.
If so, 2050 emissions will equal those in 1910, when there were 92 million Americans.
But there will be 420 million in 2050, so Obama's promise means that per capita emissions then will be about what they were in 1875.
That. Will. Not. Happen.

Disclosure of e-mails and documents from the Climate Research Unit in Britain — a collaborator with the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — reveals some scientists' willingness to suppress or massage data and rig the peer-review process and the publication of scholarly work.
The CRU materials also reveal paranoia on the part of scientists who believe that in trying to engineer "consensus" and alarm about warming, they are a brave and embattled minority.
Actually, never in peacetime history has the government-media-academic complex been in such sustained propagandistic lockstep about any subject.

The Washington Post learns an odd lesson from the CRU materials: "Climate scientists should not let themselves be goaded by the irresponsibility of the deniers into overstating the certainties of complex science or, worse, censoring discussion of them."
These scientists overstated and censored because they were "goaded" by skepticism?

Were their science as unassailable as they insist it is, and were the consensus as broad as they say it is, and were they as brave as they claim to be, they would not be "goaded" into intellectual corruption.
Neither would they meretriciously bandy the word "deniers" to disparage skepticism that shocks communicants in the faith-based global-warming community.

Skeptics about the shrill certitudes concerning catastrophic man-made warming are skeptical because climate change is constant:
From millennia before the Medieval Warm Period (800 to 1300), through the Little Ice Age (1500 to 1850), and for millennia hence, climate change is always a 100 percent certainty.
Skeptics doubt that the scientists' models, which cannot explain the present, infallibly map the distant future.

The Financial Times' peculiar response to the CRU materials is: The scientific case for alarm about global warming "is growing more rather than less compelling."
If so, then could anything make the case less compelling? A CRU e-mail says: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment" — this "moment" is in its second decade — "and it is a travesty that we can't."

The travesty is the intellectual arrogance of the authors of climate-change models partially based on the problematic practice of reconstructing long-term prior climate changes.
On such models we are supposed to wager trillions of dollars — and substantially diminished freedom.

Some climate scientists compound their delusions of intellectual adequacy with messiah complexes.
They seem to suppose themselves a small clerisy entrusted with the most urgent truth ever discovered.
On it, and hence on them, the planet's fate depends.
So some of them consider it virtuous to embroider facts, exaggerate certitudes, suppress inconvenient data, and manipulate the peer-review process to suppress scholarly dissent and, above all, to declare that the debate is over.

Consider the sociology of science, the push and pull of interests, incentives, appetites and passions.
Governments' attempts to manipulate Earth's temperature now comprise one of the world's largest industries.
Tens of billions of dollars are being dispensed, as by the U.S. Energy Department, which has suddenly become, in effect, a huge venture capital operation, speculating in green technologies.
Political, commercial, academic and journalistic prestige and advancement can be contingent on not disrupting the (postulated) consensus that is propelling the gigantic and fabulously lucrative industry of combating global warming.

Copenhagen is the culmination of the post-Kyoto maneuvering by people determined to fix the world's climate by breaking the world's —
especially America's — population to the saddle of ever-more-minute supervision by governments.
But Copenhagen also is prologue for the 2010 climate-change summit in Mexico City, which will be planet Earth's last chance, until the next one.

[CosmicRocker]

Given a Supreme Court ruling, the EPA's finding on carbon dioxide is needed before it can regulate carbon dioxide emissions from autos, factories and power plants.

So there you go. If Congress won't pass CO2 controls
Big Government ( we know what's best for you) will simply regulate it.

Please do not overlook this.
It's an end run around Congressional authority.
Of course Congress is pretty good at ducking decisions. like declaring war and such

[doctordog]

That's a given, I didn't say it woulnd't raise costs. I simply asked you to back up your assertion that we would be living again without electricity and reading by candlelight and over what time frame you predicted that would happen. Cost of living is increased on a daily basis due to inflation in all aspects of our economy, it's a built in economic factor. I'm simply asking you to show me, with hard facts, no opinions, how these regulations will be such a detriment to our economy we will end up back in the stone age. Is my question really that hard to understand?

The reason simpleton is energy cost to heat, cool and operate homes will be out of reach for even more families. Many companies with older plants will simply close them and move away leaving thousands without jobs. It is a no win for everyone except the environmentalist that live off their parents savings.:talktothehand:

[JJGlanton]

Iran has never pranced around in our region and building forces in and invading countries while trying to secure our natural resources... and if they really are a terrorists you would think Cheney & Co. would have gone there instead of looking for the non-existent program in Iraq.
Ahhh, a member of the "America is a terrorist nation" crowd.... how refreshing!

[Independent Harry]

The reason simpleton is energy cost to heat, cool and operate homes will be out of reach for even more families. Many companies with older plants will simply close them and move away leaving thousands without jobs. It is a no win for everyone except the environmentalist that live off their parents savings.:talktothehand:

Again, opinion. Do you, or do you not have hard numbers to back up your assertions, and the annualized increase in cost to show over what time period this is happening? Because right now, you are floundering in the extreme...Saying that his legislation is going to leave us all without electricity...

[doctordog]

Again, opinion. Do you, or do you not have hard numbers to back up your assertions, and the annualized increase in cost to show over what time period this is happening? Because right now, you are floundering in the extreme...Saying that his legislation is going to leave us all without electricity...

Not all of us but some of us, now who is being extreme Harry?:lmao2:

[Independent Harry]

The reason simpleton is energy cost to heat, cool and operate homes will be out of reach for even more families. Many companies with older plants will simply close them and move away leaving thousands without jobs. It is a no win for everyone except the environmentalist that live off their parents savings.:talktothehand:

You just managed to repeat that opinion, again...how about backing up your facts with numbers and hard data. My guess is you can't, and won't because you don't have a clue. I'm done with this conversation, you've dodged the question through 4 pages of posts. I don't think you will ever be able to back up your claim...

[Independent Harry]

Not all of us but some of us, now who is being extreme Harry?:lmao2:

data...numbers maybe? Some people in this country have always been without electricity. I'm asking how many, and what's the timeframe...using some data and numbers...

[doctordog]

data...numbers maybe? Some people in this country have always been without electricity. I'm asking how many, and what's the timeframe...using some data and numbers...

THe numbers you asked for would be projection like the numbers they use to enact climate change which means exactly dick in the real world. Since you have no industry background or knowledge even projected numbers would be ridiculous until you become familiar with LHV, HHV, $/GJ, GJ's/ton, and ROI.

[GetAClue]

Well according to Obama, the cost of electricity would skyrocket under his cap and trade plan:

"You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/TapscottsCopyDesk/Obama_Under_my_Plan__Electricity_Rates_Would_Neces sarily_Skyrocket_.html

I believe that he and the administration feel that without some leverage, the congress will not pass his Cap and Tax bill and having the EPA threaten to regulate Carbon Dioxide (by the way is a gas that we ALL expel from our lungs when we breath). This is a strong arm tactic aimed at getting people to support his Cap and Tax proposals that as you can see, will drive the costs of energy up in this country. It doesn't take too much thought to see where that will lead.

But for those of you that wish to blindly follow this Communist-In-Chief, you will never attempt to connect the rather large dots that are staring you in the face.