Eighty-four US House Republicans yesterday introduced a bill to nullify the EPA finding late last year that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide represent a threat to human health and therefore should be regulated as pollutants under the clean air act—also known as the “endangerment” finding.
Although this brings the focus back on Republicans as the party that is anti-climate change regulation, there has been a flurry of recent activity to nullify the EPA’s findings from both sides of the aisle, including bills introduced by Democrats and Republicans alike to accomplish essentially the same goal.
If successful, the bill could also derail the amazing consensus recently reached between automakers and the government to raise fuel economy standards and lower vehicle emissions dramatically over the next several years. The auto industry is counting on these new regulations to provide certainty as they plan for the next generation of vehicles.
The EPA findings were largely viewed as a way for the Obama administration to move forward with tackling climate change without the help of our largely dysfunctional congress. But congress is, apparently, still trying its damndest to exert its dysfunctional and broken influence.
Upon introducing the new bill, House Republican leader John Boehner said, “The last thing we need in this struggling economy is new regulations that amount to a new tax on energy, a tax that’s going to hit every middle class family and small business owner. This new effort by the EPA needs to be shut down.”
EPA spokeswoman Adora Andy said in response that these efforts by lawmakers ”deny the overwhelming science that greenhouse-gas pollution is a real and serious threat to the health and welfare of our citizen. It disregards the Supreme Court decision that directed us to act and ignores the evidence before our own eyes.”
To me it doesn’t matter what side of the argument you take, the fact of the matter is we now have the power and technology to clean up after our combustion-obsessed selves. What is wrong about that? When we burn stuff for energy or otherwise, we make all sorts of byproducts that aren’t good. Some of them have a direct link to our health (volatile organic compounds and the like) and some of them have an indirect link (upsetting the balance of the natural world). In the end they all affect us somehow, so why not fix it?
Plus, if the US doesn’t adopt some kind of climate stance and start moving towards that goal, we WILL be passed up by every other country in the new climate- and energy-centered economy. We aren’t the biggest player on the block anymore. If we hope to even remain a bit player, the writing’s on the wall.
Source: BusinessWeek
Image Credit: kevindooley‘s Flickr Photostream, Used under a creative commons license.
PDF 
Nick,
Whoo-hoo! Another sign that our Congress is still living in the past and can’t recognize the opportunity to evolve when it stares them in the face! Sorry to say this is not unexpected. While RepubliCons usually relish the opportunity to choose the Stupid Path, I wish more DemoCraps would at least take the time to get up to speed on current reality.
Nick,
Whoo-hoo! Another sign that our Congress is still living in the past and can’t recognize the opportunity to evolve when it stares them in the face! Sorry to say this is not unexpected. While RepubliCons usually relish the opportunity to choose the Stupid Path, I wish more DemoCraps would at least take the time to get up to speed on current reality.
Although I do believe that AGW is a concern, it’s one of those issues that will never get solved and to believe otherwise is to live in fairy-tale land.
It’s so tied to the entire world economy (i.e. the well being of everyone on the planet), that any plans, laws, agreements, etc. to reduce AGW, will be opposed or skirted to the point of not working anyway. “Losing battle” would be an understatement.
What we should be doing now is preparing for the effects of AGW. That will require new technologies which requires fossil fuel energy. We should try to make the world wealthy and healthy enough that it can absorb the AGW effects as they come along.
Although I do believe that AGW is a concern, it’s one of those issues that will never get solved and to believe otherwise is to live in fairy-tale land.
It’s so tied to the entire world economy (i.e. the well being of everyone on the planet), that any plans, laws, agreements, etc. to reduce AGW, will be opposed or skirted to the point of not working anyway. “Losing battle” would be an understatement.
What we should be doing now is preparing for the effects of AGW. That will require new technologies which requires fossil fuel energy. We should try to make the world wealthy and healthy enough that it can absorb the AGW effects as they come along.
Do the Republicans think that they can change the scientific reality with a *law*? C’mon people!
Sincerely, Neil
Do the Republicans think that they can change the scientific reality with a *law*? C’mon people!
Sincerely, Neil
It’s time for revolution. The system is broken.
It’s time for revolution. The system is broken.
Dear Nick,
You should have left the article “House Republicans Latest In Series To Try and Thwart New EPA Emissions Rules” in Business Week where you found it. It has nothing to add to the information on availability of any new automobile or the performance of any of them. It is a clear and simple “hit” on the republicans even though in the article Democrats are also clearly accused of the same anti EPA proposals. These proposals are bi-partisan because in this action the EPA has clearly acted outside of the intentions of congress in this law.
The EPA might have received less flack in this matter if they had been intelligent enough to concentrate o some gas other than CO2. The problem is that when carried to its illogical conclusion all mammals and most other animals on this earth must die. The problem is that we all exhale CO2 and this must be stopped.
There has been no study about the effects of removing CO2 from the atmosphere and what that would do to the supply of Oxygen in the air. You see, almost all green plants utilize CO2 as food and release O2 as a waste product.
The Ruling was 5 to 4. “The court ruled 5 to 4 that the Environmental Protection Agency violated the Clean Air Act by improperly declining to regulate new-vehicle emissions standards to control the pollutants that scientists say contribute to global warming.” Unfortunately this requires a scientific analysis and conclusion that has now been shown to be highly suspect because CO2 levels have been higher in just the last millennium, and now the validity of the information use to arrive at this conclusion is suspect. Then too, the data was not published in a respected scientific journal and it received NO peer review. There has been no explanation of the fact that there has been no increase in the global temperature since 1998, or earlier. Supposedly the warming would cause increased atmospheric moisture but the collected reports on atmospheric moisture have actually shown lower levels of moisture.
Nick, stick to automotive reporting and get out of the political hatred arena. You’ll do much better there. With automobiles you come across as knowledgeable and factual. In republishing the Business Week article you displayed a lack of knowledge about the subject.
C. J. Lingo
Chuck (or CJ, whatever you prefer)
I think we’ve had this discussion before. It’s not that ALL CO2 would be regulated as pollutants, just that as a result of EPA’s finding they would now have the ability to regulate CO2 as a pollutant when it was required. That is to say your breathing would not be regulated as pollution because that is something that naturally occurs, whereas the bringing up of old fossilized carbon from the depths of the Earth and subsequent burning of it at the surface would be regulated as CO2 pollution because that does not occur without human intervention.
Without the EPA’s finding there is no way that the auto industry can plan for the future. So, indeed, it has quite a bit to do with what types of automobiles and automotive technologies you will see in the future. The auto industry has wholeheartedly supported the endangerment finding because it provides them with a roadmap.
As for leaving it in Business Week where I found it… indeed I did use Business Week as my source, but I didn’t copy that article at all. I used it as a base to have my say… after all this is blogging. And, while g2 is MOSTLY about the technology that will power our future, it is also about the policies and politics that shape that future. While we don’t cover it all that often, we do cover it occasionally. I may have a more left-leaning slant than my cohort Chris DeMorro who has a more libertarian/right leaning slant. That is on purpose so that we can, overall, stay neutral. I never see you commenting on his political posts. What does that tell you about yourself, Chuck?
Your claims about science and scientific findings RE global warming and CO2 show me that you have a surprising lack of knowledge about global warming science. What I read in your comments shows that you have never actually read any of the studies yourself but that you are simply regurgitating what you are told by others. Given that you show a clear bias towards getting the majority of your news from one source, I would say that makes you the most biased man in the room.
Also, in terms of my title, it was meant to indicate a series of politicians, not a series of republicans. I think I clearly pointed out in my post that the attempted thwarting is coming from both sides of the aisle (as you pointed out I did yourself). So I’m not sure what you think I’m “bashing” the republicans. I also indicated that I think the whole system is dysfunctional.
Dear Nick,
You should have left the article “House Republicans Latest In Series To Try and Thwart New EPA Emissions Rules” in Business Week where you found it. It has nothing to add to the information on availability of any new automobile or the performance of any of them. It is a clear and simple “hit” on the republicans even though in the article Democrats are also clearly accused of the same anti EPA proposals. These proposals are bi-partisan because in this action the EPA has clearly acted outside of the intentions of congress in this law.
The EPA might have received less flack in this matter if they had been intelligent enough to concentrate o some gas other than CO2. The problem is that when carried to its illogical conclusion all mammals and most other animals on this earth must die. The problem is that we all exhale CO2 and this must be stopped.
There has been no study about the effects of removing CO2 from the atmosphere and what that would do to the supply of Oxygen in the air. You see, almost all green plants utilize CO2 as food and release O2 as a waste product.
The Ruling was 5 to 4. “The court ruled 5 to 4 that the Environmental Protection Agency violated the Clean Air Act by improperly declining to regulate new-vehicle emissions standards to control the pollutants that scientists say contribute to global warming.” Unfortunately this requires a scientific analysis and conclusion that has now been shown to be highly suspect because CO2 levels have been higher in just the last millennium, and now the validity of the information use to arrive at this conclusion is suspect. Then too, the data was not published in a respected scientific journal and it received NO peer review. There has been no explanation of the fact that there has been no increase in the global temperature since 1998, or earlier. Supposedly the warming would cause increased atmospheric moisture but the collected reports on atmospheric moisture have actually shown lower levels of moisture.
Nick, stick to automotive reporting and get out of the political hatred arena. You’ll do much better there. With automobiles you come across as knowledgeable and factual. In republishing the Business Week article you displayed a lack of knowledge about the subject.
C. J. Lingo
Chuck (or CJ, whatever you prefer)
I think we’ve had this discussion before. It’s not that ALL CO2 would be regulated as pollutants, just that as a result of EPA’s finding they would now have the ability to regulate CO2 as a pollutant when it was required. That is to say your breathing would not be regulated as pollution because that is something that naturally occurs, whereas the bringing up of old fossilized carbon from the depths of the Earth and subsequent burning of it at the surface would be regulated as CO2 pollution because that does not occur without human intervention.
Without the EPA’s finding there is no way that the auto industry can plan for the future. So, indeed, it has quite a bit to do with what types of automobiles and automotive technologies you will see in the future. The auto industry has wholeheartedly supported the endangerment finding because it provides them with a roadmap.
As for leaving it in Business Week where I found it… indeed I did use Business Week as my source, but I didn’t copy that article at all. I used it as a base to have my say… after all this is blogging. And, while g2 is MOSTLY about the technology that will power our future, it is also about the policies and politics that shape that future. While we don’t cover it all that often, we do cover it occasionally. I may have a more left-leaning slant than my cohort Chris DeMorro who has a more libertarian/right leaning slant. That is on purpose so that we can, overall, stay neutral. I never see you commenting on his political posts. What does that tell you about yourself, Chuck?
Your claims about science and scientific findings RE global warming and CO2 show me that you have a surprising lack of knowledge about global warming science. What I read in your comments shows that you have never actually read any of the studies yourself but that you are simply regurgitating what you are told by others. Given that you show a clear bias towards getting the majority of your news from one source, I would say that makes you the most biased man in the room.
Also, in terms of my title, it was meant to indicate a series of politicians, not a series of republicans. I think I clearly pointed out in my post that the attempted thwarting is coming from both sides of the aisle (as you pointed out I did yourself). So I’m not sure what you think I’m “bashing” the republicans. I also indicated that I think the whole system is dysfunctional.
To ChuckL
“There has been no explanation of the fact that there has been no increase in the global temperature since 1998, or earlier.” Please check some basic information sources: http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/jan/HQ_10-017_Warmest_temps.html.
To ChuckL
“There has been no explanation of the fact that there has been no increase in the global temperature since 1998, or earlier.” Please check some basic information sources: http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/jan/HQ_10-017_Warmest_temps.html.
Nick – Thank you for bringing up this very important topic, which I believe IS related to the auto industry and transportation fuels. I am a fan of yours, however I don’t always agree with your line of thinking. This important issue should not be based on the decision of 9 judges. You may have a distain for Congress, but it is still our main form of representative government. Without it, you would either have a dictator or a court deciding your future. “This is a process that should rely on the voices of the American people as reflected by their representatives, not unelected bureaucrats.” (Rep. Jo Ann Emmerson MO)
We also need to look at this in relation to the Clean Air Act of 1970 and the two amendments made in 1977 and 1990. None of this legislation gave EPA the legal authority to regulate CO2 as a pollutant. The Clean Air Act did Not frame CO2 in the context of global warming or climate change, which is still unsettled.
See: “Senators Release Climategate Report” by Erin Voegele and Kris Bevill: “More specifically, the report claims that scientists involved in Climategate obstructed the release of damaging data and information, manipulated data to reach preconceived conclusions, pressured journal editors who published work questioning the consensus on climate change, and assumed activist roles with the goal of influencing the political process…
According to the report, the CRU emails prove that the science surrounding climate change is not settled and illustrates that leading climate scientists continue to debate many issues, question the methods and statistical techniques used by their peers, have concerns over historical periods of warming and cooling, and ultimately doubt whether there is currently a consensus on the cause or extend of climate change.”
Global warming suggests that the entire Earth’s atmosphere is heating up, yet this effect is currently less than 1 degree C. That does Not melt glaciers or icecaps. So what is causing them to melt?
EPA uses unverified IPCC science, even after “Climategate” and “GlacierGate” revealed major problems. For example, IPCC made the false claim that all Himalayan glaciers would be melted by 2035, due to excess CO2 in the atmosphere, which is Not the real cause. Migrating sulfurous Black Carbon Soot (BCS), forming solar thermal layers on snow and ice – That’s what’s melting glaciers and ice caps. Not CO2.
This is Not just an IPCC oversight, as they falsely claim. This is a major omission. The omission is that, while some glaciers are receding, others are advancing. But that undermines the IPCC agenda – To finger CO2 as a universal pollutant, in order to justify a global carbon tax, a cap and trade scheme, and a new syndicate that would control all industries worldwide – run by the wealthy elite.
In other words “Pollution Migration Effect”, erroneously called global warming and re-packaged into climate change, is a power grab. The same forces that have infiltrated the UN have infiltrated the EPA. Thus EPA relies on manipulated UN science, in order to frame CO2 as a universal control mechanism. Now, after this agenda failed in Copenhagen, the power grab has shifted to EPA.
EPA is twisting their science as well. EPA lowballs the carbon footprint of petroleum based fuel, by using an old oil well baseline, and also by ignoring the massive pollution emitted by the military to protect our foreign oil supply chain. EPA also rammed international indirect land use change theory into it’s RFS-2 biofuel rules, without being scientifically proven. EPA conducted a fraudulent peer review process on the land use theory, by allowing its author and his unqualified assistants and colleagues, who were biofuel critics and political activists, with conflicts of interest, to peer review their own work…Instead of using independent experts at the Department of Agriculture, who had years of experience with the economics of land use change.
EPA also censored their own 25 year senior analyst, Dr. Allen Carlin, when he found evidence that global temperatures actually dropped slightly during the last decade. Dr. Carlin also exposed the EPA for accepting “the IPCC’s erroneous claims wholesale, without doing its own independent review… So, EPA’s endangerment finding rests on bad science. The EPW minority report provides further proof that the EPA needs to scrap the endangerment finding and start over again.” (Sen. Inhofe)
The bottom line is that CO2 may be removed from the EPA’s list of pollutants. And that’s the way it should be. Our focus should be mitigating the “Real Pollutants” where they originate, and replacing old technology with new technology – using incentives, not taxes. That can be done without imposing deep levels of bureaucracy and broad authority to over-regulate all industries, using falsified CO2 science.
Nick – Thank you for bringing up this very important topic, which I believe IS related to the auto industry and transportation fuels. I am a fan of yours, however I don’t always agree with your line of thinking. This important issue should not be based on the decision of 9 judges. You may have a distain for Congress, but it is still our main form of representative government. Without it, you would either have a dictator or a court deciding your future. “This is a process that should rely on the voices of the American people as reflected by their representatives, not unelected bureaucrats.” (Rep. Jo Ann Emmerson MO)
We also need to look at this in relation to the Clean Air Act of 1970 and the two amendments made in 1977 and 1990. None of this legislation gave EPA the legal authority to regulate CO2 as a pollutant. The Clean Air Act did Not frame CO2 in the context of global warming or climate change, which is still unsettled.
See: “Senators Release Climategate Report” by Erin Voegele and Kris Bevill: “More specifically, the report claims that scientists involved in Climategate obstructed the release of damaging data and information, manipulated data to reach preconceived conclusions, pressured journal editors who published work questioning the consensus on climate change, and assumed activist roles with the goal of influencing the political process…
According to the report, the CRU emails prove that the science surrounding climate change is not settled and illustrates that leading climate scientists continue to debate many issues, question the methods and statistical techniques used by their peers, have concerns over historical periods of warming and cooling, and ultimately doubt whether there is currently a consensus on the cause or extend of climate change.”
Global warming suggests that the entire Earth’s atmosphere is heating up, yet this effect is currently less than 1 degree C. That does Not melt glaciers or icecaps. So what is causing them to melt?
EPA uses unverified IPCC science, even after “Climategate” and “GlacierGate” revealed major problems. For example, IPCC made the false claim that all Himalayan glaciers would be melted by 2035, due to excess CO2 in the atmosphere, which is Not the real cause. Migrating sulfurous Black Carbon Soot (BCS), forming solar thermal layers on snow and ice – That’s what’s melting glaciers and ice caps. Not CO2.
This is Not just an IPCC oversight, as they falsely claim. This is a major omission. The omission is that, while some glaciers are receding, others are advancing. But that undermines the IPCC agenda – To finger CO2 as a universal pollutant, in order to justify a global carbon tax, a cap and trade scheme, and a new syndicate that would control all industries worldwide – run by the wealthy elite.
In other words “Pollution Migration Effect”, erroneously called global warming and re-packaged into climate change, is a power grab. The same forces that have infiltrated the UN have infiltrated the EPA. Thus EPA relies on manipulated UN science, in order to frame CO2 as a universal control mechanism. Now, after this agenda failed in Copenhagen, the power grab has shifted to EPA.
EPA is twisting their science as well. EPA lowballs the carbon footprint of petroleum based fuel, by using an old oil well baseline, and also by ignoring the massive pollution emitted by the military to protect our foreign oil supply chain. EPA also rammed international indirect land use change theory into it’s RFS-2 biofuel rules, without being scientifically proven. EPA conducted a fraudulent peer review process on the land use theory, by allowing its author and his unqualified assistants and colleagues, who were biofuel critics and political activists, with conflicts of interest, to peer review their own work…Instead of using independent experts at the Department of Agriculture, who had years of experience with the economics of land use change.
EPA also censored their own 25 year senior analyst, Dr. Allen Carlin, when he found evidence that global temperatures actually dropped slightly during the last decade. Dr. Carlin also exposed the EPA for accepting “the IPCC’s erroneous claims wholesale, without doing its own independent review… So, EPA’s endangerment finding rests on bad science. The EPW minority report provides further proof that the EPA needs to scrap the endangerment finding and start over again.” (Sen. Inhofe)
The bottom line is that CO2 may be removed from the EPA’s list of pollutants. And that’s the way it should be. Our focus should be mitigating the “Real Pollutants” where they originate, and replacing old technology with new technology – using incentives, not taxes. That can be done without imposing deep levels of bureaucracy and broad authority to over-regulate all industries, using falsified CO2 science.