by Damozel | Climate Progress calls it "a landmark finding for America and humanity" The New York Times reports:
Lisa P. Jackson, the E.P.A. administrator, said: “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.”
She said that combatting the emissions that create greenhouse gases would help create millions of new jobs and lessen the nation’s dependence on foreign oil by fostering a more fuel-efficient transportation industry.
The EPA's report discusses the "rigorous, peer-reviewed scientific analysis" of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perflourocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.
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.
It also found that climate change presents a serious threat to national security.
What will be the outcome? MSNBC says that the preferred method of regulation is "cap and trade" legislation passed by Congress and that in fact, this is the route that the EPA itself prefers.
Indeed, the EPA emphasized that the congressional route was preferred to EPA regulation. "Both President (Barack) 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," the EPA said in its statement....
Congress is considering imposing an economy-wide cap on greenhouse gas emissions along with giving industry the ability to trade emission allowances to mitigate costs. Legislation could be considered by the House before the August congressional recess.
At Grist, Kate Shepard discusses the paths regulation may take and the political implications of the finding.
“The EPA must go forth and regulate,” David Bookbinder, chief climate counsel at the Sierra Club, told Grist....
A bill passed out of Congress could choose to leave a large degree of the regulation to the EPA, or could spell out the rules of the game quite specifically. The climate bill the Senate debated last year left a good deal of regulatory prerogative to the agency, while the draft bill the House is currently working on lays out more specific guidelines. The House bill includes emission standards for coal-fired power plants that would supersede any EPA regulation. The bill would limit emissions for plants that come online between 2009 and 2014, and new plants permitted after Jan. 1, 2015 would need to emit less than 1,100 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour of output.
Rather than wait for Congress to act, it appears the EPA will move forward with its own rules, even though its actions may eventually be superseded by a new law. “Until Congress acts, EPA is going to go full steam ahead. That’s the bottom line,” said Bookbinder. “They have a legal duty, and they know they have a legal duty. And it will certainly create some pressure on Congress.”...
Regulations from the EPA would surely increase the pressure on Congress. Both legislators and various lobbying interests want the opportunity to create a new law, at least in part because they think it stands a better chance of being malleable. Lawmakers could shape it according to their desires (for better or worse), and companies would at least have the opportunity to offer their input on what rules should look like.
Bradford Plumer at The New Republic points out some of the other reasons that congressional action is needed.
For a variety of reasons, it'd be more effective to have Congress set climate policy and regulate greenhouse-gas emissions rather than the EPA. ..Most obviously, taking the legislative route would make the regulatory regime much more stable...There's also a case to be made that the existing Clean Air Act isn't a particularly efficient device for curbing greenhouse-gas emissions. For one, existing polluters would presumably get grandfathered in under existing rules, which could give utilities incentives to keep, say, open old dirty coal plants running for as long as possible without modifications. A congressional bill could also address broader swathes of the economy than just vehicles and power plants..
Still, at this point, it's entirely up to Congress. If Senate Republicans and conservative Democrats plan to filibuster a climate bill for all eternity, then they'll have to watch the EPA do its thing.
Brad Johnson of the Wonk Room observes: "The Obama administration is finally removing one of the great blots of the George W. Bush legacy with this action."
Also via The Wonk Room, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's statement:
RECENT BUCK NAKED POLITICS POSTINGS
The
Torture Administration: Exposed; The Operatives: Indemnified & Immunized
DoJ
to Release Torture Memos; but Obama Won't Prosecute
Was
It the Teabags Talking? Rick Perry, Gov. of Texas, Says Texas Might Secede
Colbert:
Spontaneous Grassroots Events Hosted by Fox
The
Daily Show Tea Par-TAY! "Americans buy one million teabags to protest
wasteful spending. "
A
Courageous & Dangerous Act of Protest: Afghan Women Take a Stand
More freedoms and liberties have been lost in the name of public safety than any other thing. Global warming or global cooling may be coming the so-called experts have varying opinions. Nothing is set in cemet. One thing is certain however if strict EPA standards are imposed the economic of this nation and the living standard of its people will suffer a major hit, a hit that most in this nation will not tolerate. Environmentalist have accomplished many great things, but radical enviromentalism will drive this nations economy into something far, far worse than the great depression. Getting rid of greenhouse gases sounds great, but a what cost to Americans. Free tactics do not work when the livelyhood of Americans is threatened. This simply will not fly. EPA decrees or congressional acts will have to past muster with the people and when they see that their energy bills, their jobs, the cost of all commodities, the cost of everything rising while their jobs are at risk they will kick out those Utopian socialist planners who came up with these radicals ideas.
Posted by: Ron Russell | April 18, 2009 at 04:27 AM