CE Week #5: “EPA unveils climate change proposal” Oct. 1st
If Congress fails to act, agency plans to proceed
Jim Tankersley / Tribune Washington bureau
Tags: climate change Environmental Protection Agency global warming
WASHINGTON – The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday unveiled a detailed proposal for using the government’s regulatory powers to curb greenhouse gas emissions – reassuring foreign allies on the U.S. commitment to fight climate change and warning Congress that the administration will act on its own if lawmakers fail to address the issue.
The proposed regulations would apply to large-scale industrial sources of heat-trapping gases, including power plants, factories and refineries, but not to smaller sources, such as new schools, as some critics of the EPA action had feared.
The rules would force new – or substantially modified – industrial emitters to employ “best available control technologies and energy efficiency measures” to minimize greenhouse-gas emissions, a tougher standard than the one applied to many emitters now.
The EPA action, along with the formal unveiling of proposed legislation in the Senate, stoked optimism among environmentalists and others who have voiced concern that the chances for agreement at a global warming conference in Copenhagen could be reduced if leaders of other countries concluded the U.S. was not prepared to take the kinds of steps it has urged other developed nations to take.
“We are not going to continue with business as usual while we wait for Congress to act,” EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson told a climate conference in Los Angeles. She said the proposal “allows us to do what the Clean Air Act does best – reduce emissions for better health, drive technology innovation for a better economy, and protect the environment for a better future – all without placing an undue burden on the businesses that make up the better part of our economy.”
EPA officials unveiled the proposal as international climate negotiators gathered in Bangkok to prepare for global warming treaty talks in Copenhagen in December.
The EPA rules would mimic how the agency forces power plants and factories to install “scrubbers” and other means of limiting many types of air pollutants.
But it’s unclear exactly how that would apply in the case of greenhouse gases, which scientists blame for climate change. Researchers are still studying and have yet to deploy a commercial-scale method to capture and store carbon emissions from coal plants, for example.
The EPA proposal, which must now move through a lengthy process of comments and reviews, is likely to encounter legal challenges.
A) A couple of years ago it seemed like global warming was a huge issue, which it was and still is, but recently I haven’t heard a lot about it. This article gave me some incite on what agencies are trying to do to help make our environment a lot better. I learned that The Environmental Protection Agency is trying to find a good way to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions. They are trying to get new or modified industrial emitters to employ “best available control technologies and energy efficiency measures” to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
B) I think that this is a good idea because our environment is not very good. I think that pollution is a major problem especially in California. If we could find a way to help better the air then that would be amazing. This is a good idea but there is always money involved. These new industrial emitters are probably expensive and it’s not like we just need one, we need a lot. The industrial emitters will have to go in places such as factories and power plants. As we all know the economy isn’t at its best so maybe now isn’t the time to get the new emitters.
C) How much will the industrial emitters cost?
A. What you learned?
This article somewhat addressed my last question of the “climate control” thing. I had no idea of the specifications that it will include. Such as forcing new or substantially modified technology upon industrial emitters and such. This is interesting.
B. What you think?
I believe the EPA is doing a good thing! I am sure they are all tired of waiting for Congress to start taking action on this issue. I also believe that the EPA has right to address this issue themselves if lawmakers still have it on the “back burner.” Laziness gets nothing done. Now I say that in humor of corse. I certainly do not think the lawmakers are just blowing the issue off and are treating it lightly. I believe they are working on it, but not to the potential or the progressive state that they should be. Or maybe they are taking this issue lightly. Who knows right?
C. What you would like to know?
I would like to know why EPA critics fear the ideas that the EPA have for this to take place. I mean, why would anyone be against helping our environment? Or even being a critic of it?! Being that way is like stabbing Mother Nature in the back for giving you life and watching all her blood drain out in front of you. That was a bit radical of me to say, but I cannot stand picky critics. Especially the kind that feel the need to be against something that will contribute to the greater good of the planet and even our life.
I hadn’t seen any news on anything environmental-related recently, so I wasn’t aware that there was still talk of creating a major improvement on our environment. I knew that recycling and conserving energy was still being pushed, but I didn’t realize the government was still trying to pass big projects like this. The whole issue of the polluted environment seemed to have been pushed aside with the recent election.
It doesn’t seem to that this project is very clear. It suggests that businesses use the most efficient technology, but I can’t see businesses wanting to spend the extra money to buy the high-efficiency machinery. How would that even be regulated? This proposal seems kind of random. It’s too general to just say, “upgrade to more efficient models.” It seems like the EPA is going to have to be more specific if they hope to accomplish anything.
I have read about “Copenhagen” several times just today and I still don’t understand what it is, other than a brand of tobacco. Also, the EPA warned Congress that it was going to “act on its own” if Congress didn’t put any effort into these environmental acts. Does the EPA even have any sort of authority to make anything like that happen? I thought it all had to first go through Congress.
In Response to Sadie Peterson:
Copenhagen is a city in Denmark where a conference is going to take place on the issue of climate change. It will be an attempt to take a step toward a more environmentally friendly world. To answer your question about how the EPA would act on its own, they might start an eco-terror organization to destroy non-green businesses, or a more logical answer would be that they try to get states to pass the laws they want, and just go around Congress entirely.
In response to Nicole:
I did some research and came up with two sets of numbers. One is for the United States and the other is for Canada. I couldn’t find any websites that directly specified how much it will cost the emitters in tax dollars but it is projected that the damage will be at least $400 million in the next 5-10 years. In reading several responses to this issue the solution that British Columbia (a province in Canada) proposed seems more attractive to me.
For the USA:
Large industrial emitters have secured three things they argued for consistently. One is a price cap, set at $25 a ton, at least until the end of 2012. Beyond that there is no commitment of a price cap like that proposed in Australia, though a review in 2011 might reconsider the issue.
Another is an allocation of free units based not on what plants emitted in some arbitrary base year (90 per cent of 2005 emissions) but on an intensity basis. On that basis how many units an emitter gets free will depend on their performance relative to an industry average, reducing the carbon cost of increased production at least by relatively efficient firms.
For Canada:
In this week’s budget, Finance Minister Carole Taylor proposed a carbon tax of $10-per-ton on GHG emissions, which will raise the price of gas in that province by 2.4 cents per liter and home-heating fuel by 2.76 cents per liter.
And that’s just the start. In five years, the carbon tax will be increased to $30 per ton — or 7.2 cents per liter of gasoline and 8.3 cents per liter of diesel. So what’s so great about a carbon tax?
For starters, this tax will be revenue neutral. The projected $1.85 billion the tax will raise over the next three years will be returned to taxpayers through income and business tax cuts.
In response to Jeremy Wales:
“I believe the EPA is doing a good thing!”
-Jeremy Wales
I read your article response on my panda powered laptop while I was burning plastics in an oil drum in my back yard, and I got so angry I punched Ling Ling right in her cute, little panda snout. The EPA is a government funded terrorist organization intent on diluting our air supply with neurotransmitters that control our thoughts. Before, they didn’t have the cojońes to stand up to Congress, but with a Socialist in the White House, the EPA can get away with anything.