Apparently the EPA is, for the first time,
clearing the way to regulate
greenhouse gasses under the Clean Air Act. This has potentially
far-reaching implications, particularly with a Democratic president and
congress. Cap and trade regulation is bound to be extraordinarily
unpopular, and the party that passes it is going to have some
'splaining to do when voters notice higher charges on their electricity
and gas bills. But if the EPA concludes that it already has the
authority to regulate carbon, all the part in charge has to do is . . .
nothing. That won't be popular if energy prices are rising, but it's
not nearly as politically tricky as
actively making people pay more for energy.
If carbon dioxide is a pollutant, than everyone that exhales it (i.e., everyone) is a polluter. Perhaps those who have called global warming alarmism a secular religion have a point: Christianity says we are all sinners; global warming alarmism says we are all polluters.
Prepare to be piled upon, Dave.
Lol. I'm putting in my mouthpiece as we speak.
I think it'd be worth reconsidering the doctrine of original sin before making too much fun of it (lest you be thought a wooly-headed Liberal).
As to CO2 pollution, yours is a vacuous point. As the theory runs, the problem is not CO2 'emissions' per se, it's the impact of CO2 on the surrounding environment, and particularly the impact of _newly-freed_ C02 (as opposed to the CO2 that we exchange with plants).
But you are clever.
I'm not making fun of the concept of original sin, just drawing the obvious analogy. And as for your alleged vacuity of my point about us all being emitters of the 'pollutant' carbon dioxide when we exhale, do tell how you know that the air I exhale is exchanged with plants while "newly released" carbon dioxide (e.g., that which comes out of my car's tailpipe) is not.
do tell how you know that the air I exhale is exchanged with plants while "newly released" carbon dioxide (e.g., that which comes out of my car's tailpipe) is not.
Are you joking?
Breathing is NOT carbon neutral. If you hadn't eaten that food and converted carbohydrates to CO2, the carbon would still be trapped in a solid form.
His point, for whatever it is worth, is that animal cellular respiration and plant respiration contribute to a short-term carbon cycle which circles in a relatively stable balance.
Fossil fuels, by contrast, were sequestered in a different set of environmental circumstances (the Carboniferous Period) which are not actively running now. Therefore releasing all of that stored carbon, in a relatively short period of time compared to the rate at which the environment can change to sequester it, may have a different set and scope of consequences.
If carbon dioxide is a pollutant, than everyone that exhales it (i.e., everyone) is a polluter.
Hurrrrrrrrrr.
Did I drop my link? It previewed fine.
Hogwash.
Carbon from underground burps to the surface all over the planet constantly. It does so in many forms.
One could argue that our extraction of one form - crude oil - actually slows down this process and if we ceased extracting crude from beneath the surface, the planet would respond by increasing the rate at which it expels it on its own.
Much of this reminds me of the empty arguments that "using" water somehow makes it disappear and that if we keep "using" it then one day we'll run out.
Not a big fan of sarcasm, eh?
How about this: electricity - most generation still pollutes, transportation - pollutes (even the hybrid/plug-ins which are produced/assembled through massive amounts of transportation, mining, and burning of fossil fuels), clothes - some form of pollution went into making them, food - unless you're a vegetarian who grows all your own food, there's some sort of pollution in there.
So, even though you didn't like the tongue-in-cheek statement about exhaling, we are all nevertheless guilty. We just have to buy our indulgences!
Carbon from underground burps to the surface all over the planet constantly. It does so in many forms.
All other factors being equal, a roughly equal amount is sequestered away. Do you need a lesson on basic carbon cycle dynamics?
One could argue that our extraction of one form - crude oil - actually slows down this process and if we ceased extracting crude from beneath the surface, the planet would respond by increasing the rate at which it expels it on its own.
Apparently that's a yes. Absent anthropogenic influence, CO2 levels would fluctuate between 180-300ppm on millennial timescales. What is your proposed method of natural release that would violate this 800kyr+ equilibrium?
Much of this reminds me of the empty arguments that "using" water somehow makes it disappear and that if we keep "using" it then one day we'll run out.
No one is talking about making water itself literally disappear- we can easily deplete our stores of clean freshwater through use. The water is still there, it's just unusable by us in its polluted/contaminated condition.
The way most environmental permitting works is that you need a permit on the basis of gross discharge/emission, not net. Under this basis, whether breathing is carbon-neutral is a non-sequitur in whether the EPA has the authority to require you to have a permit to do it.
As an alternative example, a nuclear plant's coolant system could be designed such that they discharge precisely the same amount of water (with, for the sake of argument, exactly the same contaminants) into a regulated water body as they take from it, but they would still be required to have a permit for that discharge even if they've secured the rights to use that water.
Lets not forget also that the actual chemical composition matters; you could in principle be fined for emitting carbon in the form of methane (which has a larger greenhouse effect) instead of in the form of the carbon-dioxide that the plants that produced the energy you used originally consumed.
Are you concerned because you expel more gas than most?
True, I would add though that the main religious analogue is the Fall of Man. The Judeo-Christian faiths teach that man once lived in innocence within divine paradise, but was caste out for grasping at the power of God. In environmentalism, man once lived in pre agricultural/industrial paradise and was caste out for grasping at the fruits of technology.
This wouldn't surprise me. Basically, for some time now, Congress has simply been abdicating responsibility for everything.
However, I don't think the Republican Party will let the Democrats off the hook so easily on this one. There will be political consequences.
Meh. The question now facing Legislators is whether it is necessary to amend the Clean Air Act.
As to the larger point -- in a way Congress' job is to abdicate responsibility: or rather, make the laws that the Executive must enforce.
Right but making a law that says "hey you, make a whole series of sweeping regulations or something to deal with this very vague issue" is not what the framers intended.
If EPA regulates carbon emissions in a way that causes energy prices to rise substantially, the President and Congress will not be able to say there is nothing they could do about that, because they could enact a law to counteract the EPA. The EPA provides no political cover.
I wonder what the EPA can do with its authority. Presumably it can't simply impose a cap & trade system or carbon tax by fiat. Can it order all coal-burning power plants to shut down? Some of them? Can it require all new power plants to be carbon-neutral?
Bill,
It is my understanding that cap and trade is within the authority of the Clean Air Act. This is where cap and trade for sulfur emissions comes from.
But, IIRC, the 1990 Clean Air Act didn't just give the EPA a generic authorization to set something up. Rather, it spelled out in detail the sulfur C&T scheme the EPA was to administer.
EPA could establish cap & trade for CO2, including a declining cap over time, but not auction allowances. They could, however, effectively prevent the construction of any new coal-fired generation until/unless carbon capture and sequestration become economically viable commercial technologies.
Also, by threatening to apply NSR to any significant repair to existing coal-fired generating stations, EPA should be able to prevent any improvements to any existing coal-fired power plants as well until/unless carbon capture and sequestration become economically viable commercial technologies.
Further, by applying a 90% mercury capture requirement to all existing coal-fired powerplants, EPA should be able to force the early returement of many older, smaller coal-fired power plants for which the investment in mercury capture is not economically justified.
Fortunately for EPA, it is not responsible for the adequacy or reliability of electric service.
and in April, 2007, the US Supreme Court ruled that CO2 is a pollutant, and it is the EPA's responsibility to regulate it.
The devil's in the rule making. Clean Air rules were adjusted under the Bush Administration to make it easier for companies that are regulated to do major overhauls of their emissions systems during routine maintenance; with a net effect of making it easier for them to avoid a review process that would otherwise have been required.
I'm pretty certain the Obama administration will review and change those rules, particularly given the pressure from the Northeastern states; they're taking the brunt of the emissions in the form of acid rain, and there are pending cases in federal court over the Bush rules.
If new rules are developed, it wouldn't surprise me to see carbon emissions regulated through the rule-making process, and cap and trade would be one of the potentials for that rule, as Yancey points out.
I don't believe that EPA can implement a cap and trade system or carbon emissions fee on it's own, because those concepts entail polluters either purchasing credits from or paying cash to the agency, and technically, a federal agency cannot collect funds unless specifically authorized by Congress to do so. In other words, either a cap and trade or carbon emissions fee would require Congress to get into the act. EPA could implement a cap and trade system under which the credits are given away, I guess, but that's not likely to happen.
If Congress is unwilling/unable to enact cap and trade or an emissions fee, then EPA would have to set a ceiling on overall emissions, then go industry by industry and force polluters to adopt emissions-reducing technology.
Cap & trade, with a declining cap, does not necessarily involve either allowance purchase or auction.
I recognize that many in Congress are already salivating over the potential revenue stream from allowance sales or auctions, so they'll likely create the mechanism.
I am frustrated that the focus is on this aspect of cap & trade, rather than on the investment of one "TARP" (~$700 billion) per year from now to 2050 which would be required to actually reduce US CO2 emissions by "80% by 2050".
@Joshua Lyle
The way most environmental permitting works is that you need a permit on the basis of gross discharge/emission, not net. Under this basis, whether breathing is carbon-neutral is a non-sequitur in whether the EPA has the authority to require you to have a permit to do it.
The "you" in question makes all the difference in the world. Individual human beings aren't going to be subject to regulation, nor are plants, nor is the ocean- all of which technically emit some CO2. Why won't they be? Because their contributions are neutral all other factors being equal.
The ocean is technically an emitter of some SO2, and our coastal waters weren't/aren't subject to the Acid Rain Program.
Are you arguing that as a practical matter the EPA won't require breathing permits, or that the law cannot be interpreted as saying that they have the authority to do so? I was only talking about the later; the former is pretty radically unlikely, but not unimaginable by any means: The Moon is a Harsh Mistress-style breathing fees aren't entirely unreasonable, nor are the cultural norms Heinlein describes surrounding them -- if we want to get really radical about environmental regulation and/or property rights, or let the EPA control the environment in a lunar colony.
Regardless, the larger point is that the EPA largely works by tracking sources, not by doing net accounting, which has implications that should be taken into account when daydreaming about what kinds of regulation they'll actually implement.
Closer to reality, since the EPA already keeps pretty detailed records on concentrated animal feeding operations for water pollution purposes it wouldn't be much of a stretch for them to apply methane emission limits on CAFOs too.
One thing we have learned from the TARP I, Stimulus, etc. is that the rules will be changed at the whim of the government once a deal is struck. There are no functional limitations as to what the EPA can do once they establish their control. I would assume that their initial version of controlling carbon emissions from power plants would involve progressively higher taxes for bulk emissions. The costs would be passed on to consumers [and I expect a codicil in the rules forbidding a break-out of the costs on the customers' bills] and the only way that the utility could reduce the taxes would be to produce less energy. Said reductions in amounts of CO2 produced could become more and more mandatory, and thus less energy will be produced by the "evil" energy companies.
The economic impact will not be good, and indeed with our system riding the edge of brownouts in many places; things could get real dicey.
Now, making the assumption that we have something approximating real elections with votes cast by real, live, legally registered voters exclusively in 2010; there would be political blowback of the first order. With $4 billion of Federal funds in ACORN's hands, that is not a given. Still, if the Republicans have half a lick of sense [something that also cannot be guaranteed, since they are known as the "stupid party" as opposed to the Democrats being the "evil party"] running against EPA regulations and taxes could be an electoral winner in areas subject to higher rates and brownouts.
Since that is something that is easily anticipated, it calls the other assumptions above into question. There is the constant, though, that this administration will do as it pleases, regardless of statutes, the Constitution, or the separation of powers. One can expect that the economic and energy situation will get far worse, before it gets better. And there is no guarantee that it will ever get better.
Subotai Bahadur
Megan
You are assuming that American voters are idiots. Now, they voted for Obama, so there's reason for you to believe that, but have a little faith in your fellow Americans.
The Democrats are in charge of Congress, and the White House. If energy prices start going up, because of policies the Democrats support, voters are going to notice.
Well those voters would be idiots in the case you point. Because they voted for people who supported policies that increase the cost of energy. So if they voted for those pols and then turn around and vote against them because the pols delivered what they promised, I think that qualifies these voters as idiots.
@sam:
here here!
Sam:
1: No one ever believes a Democrat politician will do what (s)he says to get elected.
2: "Oh, they're going to save us from the evil scourge, Global Warming! Yeah!"
"Oh, wait, doing that cost me my job? Screw them!"
People make the (bad) decision to vote for a Democrat for a lot of reason. Very few vote Democrat because they want cap and trade, or carbon taxes.
And if the Democrats decide to force those things on the American people, via EPA or Congress, it doesn't matter, the Democrats will pay for it at the ballot box.
As the vast majority of scientists concur, CO2 is a trace gas that is not a "pollutant" but instead a cornerstone of life. The fact that the new administration's EPA has now labeled it as a pollutant is simply a case of frustrated politicians & bureaucrats choosing a political maneuver, since lame AGW theories and climate models' scare-hype can't make the scientific case with the public, nor with a growing contingent of skeptical scientists.
The EPA choosing the political-regulatory path, instead of the scientific one, will result in hugely negative economic disruption and costs. Eventually, those who vote will recognize the painful monetary and lifestyle cost of labeling CO2 as a pollutant and will solve this strictly government-caused problem via the ballot. (Once the voters learn the actual facts that if the U.S. were to stop all CO2 emissions today (a miracle to be sure), the total impact on global warming by century-end would barely be one-tenth of a degree Centigrade reduction, then any politician supporting this EPA move will be toast.)
BTW, if this is what Megan meant by "attacking" global warming, that is, one-tenth of a degree, we are truly speaking of Don Quixote-like endeavors.
C3H Editor
www.c3headlines.com
Didn't the Supreme Court rule that CO2 is a "pollutant" two years ago?
The court with Alito, Roberts, Thomas, and Scalia on it?
I'd also like you to back up your claims of a 1/10 reduction if all US CO2 emissions were stopped. Use real science, please.
I can't wait for the Supreme Court to rule that Pi is exactly equal to 3.14.
It'll make my life easier.
zic,
Real Science: If the US ceased all CO2 emissions tomorrow, ceteris paribus, there would be no absolute reduction in global average surface temperature by the end of the next decade, no less by the end of the century. In fact, if CO2 is driving temperature, it is very likely that the global average surface temperature would be higher than today by the end of the century, because the Chinese would have completely offset the US reductions by the end of the next decade, with no end in sight.
There is no national or multi-national solution to the global issue of AGW. There is a global solution or there is no solution. Anything less than a global solution is doomed to failure.
A global solution, then, will seem to require a number of local solutions.
Given that the US took the lead in production of greenhouse gasses, it only seems right that it take the lead in reduction. Call it the ideology of responsibility.
As I recall, our leadership in clean air and water technologies produce new industries that added to our economy.
And what I asked for first: real science. Again, the fear mongers (who forget there might be significant economic gain from developing new industry and being a global leader in that industry) call on science to support their claims while rarely bothering to ever site it. Yet we know climate scientists agree on the reality of global warming; their arguments are in the nuance of the details. (That said, I also have family members who study climate change; and I clearly understand the only historical consistent in climate is change. Where I live was under a mile of ice 15,000, years ago, 10,000 years ago it was the ocean shore, now 75 miles away. It's not climate change that's really in question, it's the rate of change.)
In the 1970's and '80's, we paid for cleaner water and air. I didn't bankrupt our economy then, and I seriously doubt it will bankrupt our economy now. In fact, there has been significant economic gain from the improved rivers, lakes, shorelines, and cleaner air, and new industries in environmental management as a result. I think regulating green-house pollutants will likewise create new economic opportunity, in terms of both emerging industries and improved environments. Recent growth in my stock portfolio supports that notion I'm not alone in that belief.
But I do find the shorthand of CO2 for all green-house gasses annoying and misleading.
This is incredibly stupid. Even in the unlikely event that changes in trace amounts of CO2 can drive climate, nothing the EPA does is going to have any significant effect on global levels of CO2, and even if they could economic analysis suggests it wouldn't be worth the cost anyway.
Global warming policy is a lie inside a fraud wrapped around a superstitious Gaia cult.
I live in coal country. The EPA is interfering with permitting already. Mines are reducing shifts and some are shutting down. The price of coal is rising as the artificial scarcity kicks in. At these prices, there should be a lot more mining activity going on. Utility rates have already risen effective this month. On April 15, WSAZ in Huntington WV reported that people were signing petitions and protesting the utility commission because they can't afford higher power bills.
So the taxpayers (the better off half of the population) were at the tea party protests, and the poorer half on fixed incomes were protesting the utility commission.
It's starting to happen already, people.
Now I hear the environmentalist whackos are trying to shut down the Centralia, WA coal-fired power plant that provides 17% of capacity to WA state. So genius enviro-whackos - how are you going to replace that 17% - with magic fairy dust? This is why most people can't take these idiots seriously.
They don't want to replace this with anything. They want you to stop using energy. Don't you understand the thought process? People are bad for the environment. The environment is sacrosanct. Ergo people are bad.
If CO2 is a greenhouse gas, things like methane and refrigerants are greenhouse gases with more potential, and likely the target of these regulation. Europe has had such regulations for a while, and the effects are already being felt.
http://www.r744.com/article.view.php?Id=485
R744 is ammonia, which is subject to serious and expensive regulation already since is is explosive and immediately very dangerous at low concentrations.
http://www.fluorocarbons.org/en/debate/regulatory_developments/f_gas_regulation.html
Refrigerants for example. They have iirc 20 the potential of CO2. HCFC's are getting phased out already re. the Montreal Protocol. One US supermarket chain has somewhere around 80% leakage per year average. That is 80% of 1500-2000 lbs of HFC's for a small store. What the EPA will probably do is place a substantial surcharge on HFC's per pound, again like Europe.
So the odd thing that we are seeing is the development of refrigeration racks that have substantially less HFC's, and are using either glycol as a transfer medium, or for low temperature, CO2. If the system is off for some reason, the CO2 vents through the pressure relief valves. There is substantially less HFC's, for a small store somewhere less than 400 lbs, in a short coupled individually isolated system that would be prone to smaller leaks.
The funny thing about this is that these designs will use more energy. There are 4 heat transfers involved in the cycle, and there are innumerable pumps to shuffle the mediums around. And electric defrost, where the old system used rejected heat for defrost (and contributed to the need for large quantities of refrigerant).
The development of the current systems back in the '70s was prompted by the desire to decrease energy consumption.
So, higher energy use and the probable release of CO2, by mandate.
All this will mean of course is lots of work for those in the industry, and higher prices for all you suckers who want to eat.
It would be interesting to see if Europe has actually decreased their green house gas emissions by these schemes in comparison to what the US has done over the last few years.
Derek
Derek,
Ammonia is R-717. R-744 IS CO2.
Ammonia is actually the second best refrigerant available. Only water is better.
Calcium chloride solutions are also used as heat transfer fluids. They are common in refrigerated warehouses.
Stabilizing atmospheric CO2 concentration would require reducing global CO2 emissions to or below the emissions rate at which the atmospheric concentration began to rise, unless you are willing to assume that the natural carbon sinks have become more effective as they have taken up more carbon.
The atmospheric carbon concentration began increasing in about 1750, when emissions were ~1/2000th of current emissions rates. Therefore, stabilization at whatever concentration it might be achieved, would require a 99.95% reduction in global carbon emissions. The US, no matter how great its efforts, how large its investments, how magnificent its technologies, how pure its motives or how pervasive its pain is not capable of achieving a reduction in global emissions greater than its contribution to global emissions - somewhat less than 20% currently.
Heroic US reductions could reduce the rate of growth of annual emissions and the rate of growth of atmospheric concentration, relative to what they might otherwise have been. Whether such heroic US reductions would reduce global emissions in absolute terms is beyond US control. It appears rather to be controlled by the nations of the developing world.
See the movie the EPA is starring in: Life After People.
Apparently, the Constitution is no longer in force as the Executive branch has been making laws for quite a while. I wish the Legislative branch would stick to making the laws and the Executive branch would enforce them. Instead Congress passes a law effectively empowering an the Executive to make "regulations" with the force of law. These de facto laws never get voted on. So we will have the EPA making a bunch of laws that nobody ever votes on. Not that Congress would do such a great job but at least there would be more accountability.
It also seems like a real stretch of the Interstate Commerce Clause for the Federal Government to regulate my back yard trash fire or my local factory (that uses local resources). Yes, pollution spreads but that argument completely eliminates any restriction on Federal power rendering any distinction between Federal and State power moot.