Wow, rayb. I'm impressed. That's a REALLY good find and explanation!
The PDO/AMO cycle is a MUCH better explanation for what has been happening to temperature trends than CO2. In fact, CO2 looks like a very poor fit for a major driver of climate.
Arn, sorry I didn't elaborate. I'd actually been waiting for video to be posted at the Heartland Conference site. I am about to do a major series on the subject in this thread. This may be the "smoking gun" of climate, and could be the death knell to CO2 as a climate driver.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 03-29-2009).]
WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Friday sent a proposed rule to the White House's Office of Management and Budget that says carbon dioxide is a danger to the public, according to EPA officials and federal records published Monday.
The endangerment finding - which EPA officials and internal documents say proposes that the greenhouse gas is a danger to both public health and welfare - will trigger emissions regulations across the economy under the Clean Air Act.
While President Barack Obama says he prefers Congress to create a system that caps greenhouse gas emissions and creates a market for businesses to buy and sell the right to emit, the administration is moving forward on CO2 regulations under the Clean Air Act as a back-stop strategy designed to pressure reluctant lawmakers into action.
"The president has made clear that to combat climate change, his strong preference is for Congress to pass energy security legislation that includes a cap on greenhouse gas emissions," a White House spokesman said in an email. "The Supreme Court ruled that the EPA must review whether greenhouse gas emissions pose a threat to public health or welfare, and this is simply the next step in what will be a long process that engages stakeholders and the public," he said.
"This is historic news," Frank O'Donnell, head of the environmental advocacy group Clean Air Watch, wrote in an email. "It will set the stage for the first- ever national limits on global warming pollution, and it is likely to help light a fire under Congress to get moving."
EPA spokeswoman Cathy Milbourn declined to comment on the details of the endangerment proposal, saying it was "still [an] internal and deliberative" document.
Industry officials say that it will still take months, possibly even years, for the administration to finalize rules on regulating greenhouse gas emissions.
A complete inter-agency review - including White House consent - is expected to be completed by April 10 and the proposal officially signed by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson on April 16, according to an internal document presented to White House officials earlier this month and leaked to the news media. The endangerment proposal would be subjected to a 60-day public comment period before moving into the final rule stage.
According to the internal document, the EPA believes the health effects of elevated greenhouse gas levels could cause "severe heat waves...with likely increases in mortality and morbidity, especially among the elderly, young and frail." The agency also said climate change caused by higher greenhouse gas levels could create extreme weather events. "Storm impacts are likely to be more severe" and "projected trends will increase the number of people suffering from disease and injury due to floods, storms, droughts and fires," the document said.
Coal-fired power plants, oil refineries and domestic industries, such as energy-intensive paper, cement, fertilizer, steel and glass manufacturers, are worried the increased cost burdens imposed by climate change laws will put them at a severe competitive disadvantage to their international peers who aren't bound by similar environmental rules.
Business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers warn that if the EPA moves forward on regulation of CO2 under the Clean Air Act - instead of a measured legislative approach - it could force the entire economy to a grinding halt.
"The problem is that there are a lot of unintended consequences if they bet wrong," said William Kovacs, vice president of the U.S. Chamber's environmental and regulatory affairs department. Besides triggering costly new regulation of thousands of emitting facilities across the country, Kovacs said some environmental groups may sue the government for more stringent application of the rules across a broader array of emitters.
Environmentalists say action, either by Congress or the administration, is necessary to halt global warming and prevent the potential harmful impacts on humans and the environment.
If the White House moves ahead with a proposed finding that CO2 endangers both public health and welfare, as political pundits and climate-change analysts widely expect, regulations of greenhouse gases could be much more stringent than the original endangerment draft proposal prepared, but not approved, by the previous administration.
Earlier this month, the EPA proposed a national system for reporting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions by major emitters.
The EPA said about 13,000 facilities, accounting for about 85% to 90% of greenhouse gases emitted in the country, would be covered under the registry proposal.
The Obama administration has said it would prefer to draft climate legislation rather than use the Clean Air Act, considered too blunt of a regulatory tool for rules that would impact nearly every sector of the U.S. economy.
The administration proposed in its fiscal-year 2010 budget raising $646 billion through government auctions of emission allowances, with most of the money being used to compensate consumers for higher energy prices. But senior Treasury officials have admitted the actual cost could be two to three times higher, and a note in the budget proposed using additional funds for a raft of other federal expenditures such as healthcare and paying the nation's deficit.
Note: 3 times higher? My calculator says that's 1,938 TRILLION dollars in new taxes and costs on energy and goods.
But some lawmakers are complaining that the president has yet to unveil a formal legislative proposal for creating such a system.
On Friday, Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., a longtime champion of his state's beleaguered auto makers, told reporters that he has advised the administration to offer a detailed climate proposal "at the earliest minute."
"If they don't, the drafting or the completing of the legislation will be very difficult," Dingell said.
Dingell said Monday in an email, "As I have been saying all along, this is not the best set of tools for regulating greenhouse gases and it will result in a glorious mess."
"For this reason, I am pleased the Congress and the Energy and Commerce Committee have set a rigorous schedule for considering comprehensive climate change legislation," he said.
Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., is in the final stages of drafting a comprehensive climate and energy bill - expected to be unveiled later this month - but the real fight is going to be in the Senate.
While Democrats hold stronger majorities in both the House and the Senate, there is resistance by some senior and influential Democrats in the Senate to some of the president's climate and energy proposals. Specifically, many don't support a 100% auction of emission credits - which would be more expensive than giving out emission allowances - and so administration officials have suggested ramming the climate revenues through the budget process, which would require only 51 votes instead of the normal 60.
The administration is feeling pressure to demonstrate action on warming before December, when governments from around the world are set to open talks aimed at forging a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 agreement that commits many industrialized countries to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions.
Thanks, that is very revealing. I don't subscribe to that PDO being a root cause, I view it as an effect of reduced solar radiation over the Pacific Ocean.
Of course what do I know? But it seems logical that with reduced solar radiation, the largest pool of water on earth would cool off and start a different current pattern.
Thanks, that is very revealing. I don't subscribe to that PDO being a root cause, I view it as an effect of reduced solar radiation over the Pacific Ocean.
Of course what do I know? But it seems logical that with reduced solar radiation, the largest pool of water on earth would cool off and start a different current pattern.
Arn
Well, I'm sure something is driving PDO. I'm still digging in to see what the leading theories are. Keep in mind that the PDO was only recently discovered (1998, I think), so it's a much newer thing than AGW theories. The Heartland conference just happened a few weeks ago, and I'm going through the lectures and powerpoint presentations to see what the latest information is on these theories. I plan to do a report in this thread when I have a more complete picture, but it may take me another week. In the meantime, you can check it out yourself: http://www.heartland.org/ev...k09/proceedings.html
I listen to the audio of the lecture, and follow along in powerpoint. I'd recommend these three lectures on PDO:
Tuesday, March 10
Track 2: Climatology George Taylor - The Pacific Decadal Oscillation: A Dominant Mode of Climate Variability (PowerPoint) (Listen to Audio) Roy Spencer - Satellite Evidence for Global Warming Being Driven by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PowerPoint) (Listen to Audio) William Gray - Climate Change Is Primarily Driven by Salinity-Induced Deep Ocean Circulation Changes (PowerPoint) (PDF of Remarks) (Listen to Audio)
These are some very well credentialed scientists. Roy Spencer worked for NASA, and now is at UAH and works on a couple of NASA climate satellite projects. He's authored two recent papers on cloud cover feebacks, which are VERY important to climate theory. His web site, which has really good information is: www.drroyspencer.com
They know there's no such thing as man-made global warming, but they're salivating at the thought of the money the cap program will bring in, as well as the added control they'll have.
They know there's no such thing as man-made global warming, but they're salivating at the thought of the money the cap program will bring in, as well as the added control they'll have.
Too bad they're going to collapse the U.S. economy to do it. I wonder how happy they'll be to be in control of a broken-down machine?
Too bad they're going to collapse the U.S. economy to do it. I wonder how happy they'll be to be in control of a broken-down machine?
My (very slim) hope at this point is that with the economy in the dumps, enough people will protest the tremendous cost. The masses won't relinquish the idea of global warming, but they may understand what will happen to the cost of energy if this crap were to become law. Maybe, just maybe economic reality will replace the cult of GW. Given the panic that resulted from $4/gallon for gasoline, having people discover that their electric bills and such will rise by a significant percentage won't play well politically.
I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but the ozone depletion chart seems to co-incide with major volcanic eruptions. However, every time I look at a significant point in time in history (like the industrial era), I see an IMPROVEMENT in the ozone layer (meaning a reduction in depletion).
I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but the ozone depletion chart seems to co-incide with major volcanic eruptions. However, every time I look at a significant point in time in history (like the industrial era), I see an IMPROVEMENT in the ozone layer (meaning a reduction in depletion).
Five scientific questions on the CFC-Ozone Issue (S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science) Freon Superstitions (The Washington Times) Ozone: The Hole Truth (The Heritage Foundation) The Case of Assessing Ozone Depletion Risk (S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science)
Banning Chemicals To Protect Ozone May Aggravate Global Warming, Atmospheric Scientist Says (Science Daily) Future Volcanic Eruptions May Cause Ozone Hole Over Arctic (Science Daily) Huge 2004 Stratospheric Ozone Loss Tied To Solar Storms, Arctic Winds (Science Daily) Ozone Pollution: Not Always Caused By Humans (Science Daily) "Raining" Electrons Contribute To Ozone Destruction (Science Daily) Solar Storms, Arctic Winds Swirl In A Double Dip Cone Of Ozone Loss (Science Daily) Solar Storms Destroy Ozone, Study Reconfirms (Science Daily) Volcanic Aerosol Clouds And Gases Lead To Ozone Destruction (Science Daily)
Originally posted by GT86: Given the panic that resulted from $4/gallon for gasoline, having people discover that their electric bills and such will rise by a significant percentage won't play well politically.
I doubt it. For the general public to really get stirred up, the prices have to BE high, they can't just be a threat. The impact of $4/gallon gas had to occur and be felt before you got any reaction from the public. No, it will take the job losses and doubling of electricity prices to get people pissed off, unfortunately. And, unfortunately, it will then be too late. Once governments put a tax in place, it's damn near impossible to get rid of it.
I don't know how anyone can look at the following data, and still believe CO2 is driving the climate...
CO2 versus temperatures, 1905-2000
Correlation percentage: 44
PDO/AMO versus temperatures, 1905-2000
Correlation percentage: 85
85% for PDO/AMO versus 44% for CO2. Which would YOU bet on as a driver of climate? Still believe CO2 is the main driver? Willing to bet your FUTURE and your children's future on it?
Few things are as frightening as governments that don't want to be confused by the facts because their minds are made up.
So it is with U.S. President Barack Obama and most Democrats, who, determined to create a domestic carbon cap-and-trade market, which Canada will inevitably be forced to join, are rushing into this useless and discredited "tool" for addressing man-made climate change, like lemmings going over a cliff.
It's not as if we don't know what's going to happen.
Based on the experience of the world's largest carbon trading market -- Europe's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), created in January, 2005 -- we know exactly.
First, electricity prices paid by already hard-hit North American consumers are going to rise even higher and faster than they are now.
Second, giant energy utilities, hedge fund managers and speculators are going to make a fortune on the backs of ordinary taxpayers, from the moment the government puts a price on emitting carbon dioxide.
Third, emissions by major industries -- which cap-and-trade is supposed to reduce -- will continue to rise under normal economic conditions, as they did in the ETS from 2005 to 2007.
(Preliminary data from the European Union released yesterday shows 2008 emissions dropped, but that was mainly due to the global recession, since the less demand there is for goods and services, the less energy it takes to produce them.)
Power up
Moody's Investors Service predicts U.S. electricity rates will rise up to 30% due to cap-and-trade alone, and "the vast majority" of that will be paid by ordinary citizens.
By contrast, large industrial emitters will pass along cost hikes to consumers, plus win favourable concessions from government bureaucrats, desperate to do the bidding of their political masters by getting the system up and running quickly, no matter how flawed.
That's what happened in Europe. It's why the ETS is a fiasco.
The myth about cap-and-trade is that it pits environmentalists and "green" politicians against big business, using market forces to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. This is nonsense.
In fact, all three become allies in assaulting the wallets of ordinary citizens.
As Democratic Rep. John Dingell, of Michigan told CNN last month: "I attended a recent meeting of an organization interested in (climate change legislation) and guess who it was? It was a bunch of good-hearted Wall Streeters ... getting ready to cut a fat hog."
Added Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington: "Starting with Enron and now the current financial meltdown, energy markets have been a target-rich environment for (undeserved profits) ... We don't need to solve our carbon problems by creating another fiscal crisis because we have a trading platform that has lots of holes and ends up being exploited."
Supporters
Not only was Enron an early supporter of cap-and-trade, so are many firms involved in the ongoing global financial meltdown, including AIG, which has received $173 billion in federal bailouts so far; Morgan Stanley ($25 billion); JP Morgan Chase & Co. ($25 billion); Merrill Lynch ($10 billion) and Goldman Sachs, which got a chunk of the AIG bailout because of its financial relationship with it.
As Republican Rep. Greg Walden of Oregon observed: "This is a disaster in the making. If you like the bubbles of the technology market and the housing market, I predict you'll love the bubble that will come from the cap-and-trade market." Indeed.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 04-05-2009).]
Rapid growth spurt leaves amount of ice at levels seen 29 years ago.
Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.
Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards.
The data is being reported by the University of Illinois's Arctic Climate Research Center, and is derived from satellite observations of the Northern and Southern hemisphere polar regions.
Each year, millions of square kilometers of sea ice melt and refreeze. However, the mean ice anomaly -- defined as the seasonally-adjusted difference between the current value and the average from 1979-2000, varies much more slowly. That anomaly now stands at just under zero, a value identical to one recorded at the end of 1979, the year satellite record-keeping began.
Sea ice is floating and, unlike the massive ice sheets anchored to bedrock in Greenland and Antarctica, doesn't affect ocean levels. However, due to its transient nature, sea ice responds much faster to changes in temperature or precipitation and is therefore a useful barometer of changing conditions.
Earlier this year, predictions were rife that the North Pole could melt entirely in 2008. Instead, the Arctic ice saw a substantial recovery. Bill Chapman, a researcher with the UIUC's Arctic Center, tells DailyTech this was due in part to colder temperatures in the region. Chapman says wind patterns have also been weaker this year. Strong winds can slow ice formation as well as forcing ice into warmer waters where it will melt.
Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
In May, concerns over disappearing sea ice led the U.S. to officially list the polar bear a threatened species, over objections from experts who claimed the animal's numbers were increasing.
WASHINGTON – Tinkering with Earth's climate to chill runaway global warming — a radical idea once dismissed out of hand — is being discussed by the White House as a potential emergency option, the president's new science adviser said Wednesday.
That's because global warming is happening so rapidly, John Holdren told The Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month.
The concept of using technology to purposely cool the climate is called geoengineering. One option raised by Holdren and proposed by a Nobel Prize-winning scientist includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays.
Using such an experimental measure is only being thought of as a last resort, Holdren said.
"It's got to be looked at," he said. "We don't have the luxury ... of ruling any approach off the table."
His concern is that the United States and other nations won't slow global warming fast enough and that several "tipping points" could be fast approaching. Once such milestones are reached, such as complete loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic, it increases chances of "really intolerable consequences," he said.
Twice in a half-hour interview, Holdren compared global warming to being "in a car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog."
He and many experts believe that warming of a few degrees more would lead to disastrous drought conditions and food shortages in some regions, rising seas and more powerful coastal storms in others.
At first, Holdren characterized the potential need to technologically tinker with the climate as just his personal view. However, he went on to say he has raised it in administration discussions.
"We're talking about all these issues in the White House," Holdren said. "There's a very vigorous process going on of discussing all the options for addressing the energy climate challenge."
Holdren said discussions include Cabinet officials and heads of sub-Cabinet level agencies, such as NASA and the Environmental Protection Agency.
The 65-year-old physicist is far from alone in taking geoengineering seriously. The National Academy of Sciences is making it the subject of the first workshop in its new climate challenges program for policymakers, scientists and the public. The British Parliament has also discussed the idea. At an international meeting of climate scientists last month in Copenhagen, 15 talks dealt with different aspects of geoengineering.
The American Meteorological Society is crafting a policy statement that says "it is prudent to consider geoengineering's potential, to understand its limits and to avoid rash deployment."
Last week, Princeton scientist Robert Socolow told the National Academy that geoengineering should be an available option in case climate worsens dramatically.
Holdren, a 1981 winner of a MacArthur Foundation "genius" grant, outlined these possible geoengineering options:
• Shooting sulfur particles (like those produced by power plants and volcanoes, for example) into the upper atmosphere, an idea that gained steam when it was proposed by Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen in 2006. It would be "basically mimicking the effect of volcanoes in screening out the incoming sunlight," Holdren said.
• Creating artificial "trees" — giant towers that suck carbon dioxide out of the air and store it.
The first approach would "try to produce a cooling effect to offset the heating effect of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases," Holdren said.
But he said there could be grave side effects. Studies suggest that might include eating away a large chunk of the ozone layer above the poles and causing the Mediterranean and the Mideast to be much drier.
And those are just the predicted problems. Scientists say they worry about side effects that they don't anticipate.
While the idea could strike some people as too risky, the Obama administration could get unusual support on the idea from groups that have often denied the harm of global warming in the past.
The conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute has its own geoengineering project, saying it could be "feasible and cost-effective." And Cato Institute scholar Jerry Taylor said Wednesday: "Very few people would rule out geoengineering on its face."
Holdren didn't spell out under what circumstances such extreme measures might ever be called for. And he emphasized they are not something to rely on.
"It would be preferable by far," he said, "to solve this problem by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases."
Yet there is already significant opposition building to the House Democratic leaders' bill aimed at achieving President Barack Obama's goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions 20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050.
Holdren said temperatures should be kept from rising more than 3.6 degrees. To get there, he said the U.S. and other industrial nations have to begin permanent dramatic cuts in carbon dioxide pollution by 2015, with developing countries following suit within a decade.
Those efforts are racing against three tipping points he cited: Earth could be as close as six years away from the loss of Arctic summer sea ice, he said, and that has the potential of altering the climate in unforeseen ways. Other elements that could dramatically speed up climate change include the release of frozen methane from thawing permafrost in Siberia, and more and bigger wildfires worldwide.
The trouble is that no one knows when these things are coming, he said.
Since we have been on the subject of Arctic expeditions this week, I thought I’d share this short essay sent to me by WUWT reader “thoughtful”. It has some interesting perspectives from a NAVY expedition called “Operation Nanook” which is supported by the newspaper clipping from the Berkshire County Eagle (Pittsfield, MA) of October 16th, 1946. It was one of those rare times when a Northwest Passage appears to have been possible - Anthony
Looking at timelines of arctic exploration, we find that virtually nobody went there during the 30s and early 40s, despite that correlating with the warmest temperatures on record (great Depression, WW II, go figure). Attached is an account of an arctic naval expedition (Operation Nanook) that took place the summer of 1946, just after WWII. Vinther, et al (1) reports the merged JJA monthly temps were in the 7.3 to 7.4 deg C range in Greenland between 1931 and 1950. In the 1990s, it was a full degree C lower. The “norm” for Thule in JJA runs somewhere around 4 - 5 deg C (1961 to current data).
Here’s another account from the same expedition: “On 4 July 1946, Atule headed for the frozen north as a member of Operation “Nanook.” The purpose of this mission was to assist in the establishment of advanced weather stations in the Arctic regions and to aid in the planning and execution of more extensive naval operations in polar and sub-polar regions. In company with USS Norton Sound (AV-11), USCGC Northwind (WAG-282), USS Alcona (AK-157), USS Beltrami (AK-162), and USS Whitewood (AN-63), Atule was to transport supplies and passengers, conduct reconnaissance of proposed weather station sites, train personnel, and collect data on Arctic conditions.
Atule rendezvoused with Northwind and Whitewood off the southwestern coast of Greenland on 11 July 1946 and put into Melville Bight, Baffin Bay, on 20 July, while a PBM reconnoitered Thule Harbor and the approaches to the harbor. Following engine trouble the PBM had made an emergency landing; and Atule was dispatched to recover the plane, becoming the first ship of the operation to enter the harbor. Atule then conducted tests and exercises in Smith South-Kane Basin with Whitewood. During one such exercise, she reached latitude 79 degrees 11 minutes north in the Kane Basin, setting a record for the United States Navy. On 29 July, Atule departed Thule, having completed all of her scheduled projects, stopped at Halifax, Nova Scotia, and reached New London late in August to resume her former duties.”
It would be fascinating to visit the naval archives and see ships logs from this expedition. One wonders what the sea ice extent was then. I do note that the Kane Basin was at least partially iced over on August 10, 2007 — the nearest data I’ve got to July for the recent 2007 minimum (and probably represents less ice than July).
Reference (1) Extending Greenland temperature records into the late eighteenth century B. M. Vinther,1 K. K. Andersen,1 P. D. Jones,2 K. R. Briffa,2 and J. Cappelen3 Received 24 October 2005; revised 11 January 2006; accepted 28 February 2006; published 6 June 2006. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 111, D11105, doi: 10.1029/2005JD006810, 2006 )
WASHINGTON Cars, power plants and factories could all soon face much tougher pollution limits after a government declaration Friday setting the stage for the first federal regulation of gases blamed for global warming.
The Environmental Protection Agency took a big step in that direction, concluding that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases are a major hazard to Americans' health. That was a reversal from the Bush administration, which resisted such a conclusion and said it would be costly for companies to meet new emission limits and therefore could harm the national economy.
"In both magnitude and probability, climate change is an enormous problem (and) the greenhouse gases that are responsible for it endanger public health and welfare," said the EPA, concluding the dangers warrant action under federal air pollution laws.
It was the first time the federal government had said it was ready to use the Clean Air Act to require power plants, cars and trucks to curtail their release of climate-changing pollution, especially carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.
The agency said the science pointing to man-made pollution as a cause of global warming is "compelling and overwhelming." It also said tailpipe emissions from motor vehicles contribute.
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson cautioned that regulations are not imminent and made clear that the Obama administration would prefer that Congress address the climate issue through a broader "cap-and-trade" program that would limit heat-trapping pollution.
But she said it was clear from the EPA analysis "that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations" and steps are needed to curtail the impact.
Even if actual regulations are not imminent, the EPA action was seen as likely to encourage action on Capitol Hill.
It's "a wake-up call for Congress" deal with it directly through legislation or let the EPA regulate, said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who chairs the Senate committee dealing with climate legislation. If Congress doesn't move, Boxer said she would press EPA to taker swift action.
Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., whose House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hopes to craft legislation in the coming weeks, called the EPA action "a game changer."
"It now changes the playing field with respect to legislation. It's now no longer doing a bill or doing nothing. It is now a choice between regulation and legislation," said Markey.
Republicans and some centrist Democrats have been critical of proposed cap-and-trade climate legislation, arguing it would lead to much higher energy prices. Such a measure could impose an economy-wide limit on greenhouse gas emissions but let individual companies or plants trade emission allowances among each other to mitigate costs.
House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio called EPA's move toward regulation "a backdoor attempt to enact a national energy tax that will have a crushing impact on consumers, jobs and our economy."
But environmentalists called the EPA action a watershed in addressing climate change.
"It's momentous. This has enormous legal significance. It is the first time the federal government has said officially the science is real, the danger is real and in this case that pollution from cars contributes to it," said David Doniger, climate policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an advocacy group.
Reaction from energy intensive industries was quick and critical.
"The proposed endangerment finding poses an endangerment to the American economy and every American family," declared Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute.
A spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute, Dan Riedinger, said under the EPA approach "the process won't be pretty ... fraught with uncertainty." The group, which represents investor-owned electric utilities, prefers action by Congress rather than federal regulators.
The Bush administration strongly opposed using the Clean Air Act to address climate change and stalled on producing the so-called "endangerment finding" that had been ordered by the Supreme Court two years ago when it declared greenhouse gases pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
The court case, brought by Massachusetts, focused only on emissions from automobiles. But it is widely assumed that if the EPA must regulate emissions from cars and trucks, it will have no choice but to control similar pollution from power plants and industrial sources.
The EPA wants to unleash a "regulatory barrage that will destroy jobs, raise energy prices for consumers, and undermine America's global competitiveness," complained Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., one of Congress' most vocal skeptics of global warming.
In addition to carbon dioxide, a product of burning fossil fuels, the EPA finding covers five other emissions that scientists believe are warming the earth when they concentrate in the atmosphere: Methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 04-18-2009).]
I WARNED people this would happen. They didn't listen. And it's only going to get worse, unless the politicians decide that reducing CO2 is too costly. But, with the EPA ruling, Obama and company can bypass any lack of legislation, and the EPA can then just do whatever it wants. That's the point of this - to get what they want whether the congress acts or not.
Say "bye bye" to jobs and affordable energy prices. At it will ALL be brought to you by liberals.
I WARNED people this would happen. They didn't listen. And it's only going to get worse, unless the politicians decide that reducing CO2 is too costly. But, with the EPA ruling, Obama and company can bypass any lack of legislation, and the EPA can then just do whatever it wants. That's the point of this - to get what they want whether the congress acts or not.
Say "bye bye" to jobs and affordable energy prices. At it will ALL be brought to you by liberals.
But just look at the shining example of Spain that Obama likes to hold up a a success....... It's a total failure. Obama is all about power grabs like his buddy Chavez. He has more czars then Bush did. But it was evil when Bush did it. Who needs Congressional oversight when you can by pass them by not putting cabinet level appointees in your cabinet but some where else.
I hope some one can find a way to bring this up to SCOTUS so the science can be heard in a court instead of just spoon fed lies from Gore.
But just look at the shining example of Spain that Obama likes to hold up a a success....... It's a total failure. Obama is all about power grabs like his buddy Chavez. He has more czars then Bush did. But it was evil when Bush did it. Who needs Congressional oversight when you can by pass them by not putting cabinet level appointees in your cabinet but some where else.
I hope some one can find a way to bring this up to SCOTUS so the science can be heard in a court instead of just spoon fed lies from Gore.
The problem is, it already has come to the SCOTUS, and their ruling is the basis for this EPA action. With that court decision, Obama in the White House and a liberal Congress, there's nothing to stop this bullshit.
So the solution to the non-existent problem isn't working? Go figure.
Really, that's our only hope - that this carbon trading crap fails. If it doesn't, kiss MILLIONS of jobs in the U.S. goodbye. And no...they WON'T be made up be "green" jobs.
