Spring Break
U.S. prepared to regulate global warming
Erik Anderson
Issue date: 4/21/09 Section: Opinion
On Friday, the Environmental Protection Agency declared the six principal greenhouse gases - carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride - to be air pollutants that pose a risk to public health and welfare.
This is the first step for the U.S. toward addressing its contribution to global warming, and it's about time.
Five years ago, several states and environmental groups sued the EPA to force it to define greenhouse gases as air pollution under the Clean Air Act. In turn, the EPA argued that it did not have the authority to regulate global warming.
The suit was eventually appealed to the Supreme Court. In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that the EPA was obligated to evaluate whether greenhouse gases were a danger to the public and the environment.
That ruling was practically ignored by then-EPA administrator Stephen Johnson, who echoed the Bush administration's firm opposition to any regulation of greenhouse gases.
President Obama, however, promised action on the case early in his presidency, which led to Friday's announcement.
The EPA's findings are significant because they put pressure on Congress to develop legislation that will comprehensively address global warming and the transition to a clean energy economy.
The EPA did not include any regulations or emissions targets in its announcement, but it will soon begin regulating motor vehicles for emissions of greenhouse gases. In the future, regulations may expand to include power plants, oil refineries and factories.
Both Obama and EPA administrator Lisa Jackson have called on lawmakers to guide the regulatory process.
The work in Washington has already started.
The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 is draft legislation proposed by Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Edward Markey, D-Mass. The bill includes provisions for increasing energy efficiency, developing clean energy and establishing a cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.
This is the first step for the U.S. toward addressing its contribution to global warming, and it's about time.
Five years ago, several states and environmental groups sued the EPA to force it to define greenhouse gases as air pollution under the Clean Air Act. In turn, the EPA argued that it did not have the authority to regulate global warming.
The suit was eventually appealed to the Supreme Court. In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that the EPA was obligated to evaluate whether greenhouse gases were a danger to the public and the environment.
That ruling was practically ignored by then-EPA administrator Stephen Johnson, who echoed the Bush administration's firm opposition to any regulation of greenhouse gases.
President Obama, however, promised action on the case early in his presidency, which led to Friday's announcement.
The EPA's findings are significant because they put pressure on Congress to develop legislation that will comprehensively address global warming and the transition to a clean energy economy.
The EPA did not include any regulations or emissions targets in its announcement, but it will soon begin regulating motor vehicles for emissions of greenhouse gases. In the future, regulations may expand to include power plants, oil refineries and factories.
Both Obama and EPA administrator Lisa Jackson have called on lawmakers to guide the regulatory process.
The work in Washington has already started.
The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 is draft legislation proposed by Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Edward Markey, D-Mass. The bill includes provisions for increasing energy efficiency, developing clean energy and establishing a cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.
Viewing Comments 1 - 5 of 5
jimmy
posted 4/21/09 @ 7:32 AM MST
The EPA saying greenhouse gasses are bad for your health does not confirm "global warming." When the average middle American households heating bill goes up a couple thousand a year we will see how long this policy lasts. (Continued…)
Lost in words
posted 4/21/09 @ 3:18 PM MST
"U.S. prepared to regulate global warming"
Uh....duh...
The U.S. can not regulate global warming. It can attempt to prevent its own contributions from being as great, but it can not "regulate" it. (Continued…)
Arvensis
posted 4/21/09 @ 3:29 PM MST
Thank heavens for Barry! He is finally going to save the world like he promised!
Take note that the EPA has developed their views of global warming from IPCC's "findings". (Continued…)
Registered Independent
posted 4/21/09 @ 5:28 PM MST
Response to Erik,
If carbon dioxide levels need to come down 83%, that's going to require major lifestyle "adjustments". And not just regarding cars and industry. (Continued…)
Arvensis
posted 4/24/09 @ 11:51 PM MST
The more I think about this, the more pissed off I get. Americans; people of the world: we need to wake up! Global warming is NOT caused by CO2 emissions and although the EPA just decided that CO2 is a pollutant, it is NOT! This entire cap and trade bullsH1it is unbelievable. (Continued…)
Post a Comment