EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- How the US Turned Three Pacifists into Violent Terrorists
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- Revealed: How US State Department 'Twists Arms' on Monsanto's Behalf
- Victory in Seattle as Teachers Win Battle in Standardized Test Boycott
Popular content
Today's Top News
EPA: Global Warming Threatens Public Health, Welfare
The Environmental Protection Agency sent a proposal to the White House on Friday finding that global warming is endangering the public's health and welfare, according to several sources, a move that could have far-reaching implications for the nation's economy and environment.
The proposal -- which comes in response to a 2007 Supreme Court decision ordering EPA to consider whether carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases should be regulated under the Clean Air Act -- could lay the groundwork for nationwide measures to limit such emissions. It reverses one of the Bush administration's landmark environmental decisions: In July 2008 then-EPA administrator Stephen Johnson rejected his scientific and technical staff's recommendation and announced the agency would seek months of further public comment on the threat posed by global warming pollution.
"This is historic news," said Frank O'Donnell, who heads the public watchdog group Clean Air Watch. "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."
But business groups decried the move as an economic disaster.
"By moving forward with the endangerment finding on greenhouse gases, EPA is putting in motion a set of decisions that may have far-reaching unintended consequences," said Bill Kovacs, vice president of environment, technology and regulatory affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "Specifically, once the finding is made, no matter how limited, some environmental groups will sue to make sure it is applied to all aspects of the Clean Air Act.
"This will mean that all infrastructure projects, including those under the president's stimulus initiative, will be subject to environmental review for greenhouse gases. Since not one of the projects has been subjected to that review, it is possible that the projects under the stimulus initiative will cease. This will be devastating to the economy."
In December 2007 EPA submitted a written recommendation to the White House urging the Bush administration to allow EPA to state officially that global warming is a threat to human welfare. But senior White House officials refused to open the document and urged Johnson to reconsider, saying such a finding would trigger sweeping regulatory requirements under the 45-year-old Clean Air Act. An EPA analysis had found the move would cost utilities, automakers and others billions of dollars while also bringing benefits to other economic sectors.
EPA officials could not be reached immediately today for comment on the proposal.
Several congressional Democrats had urged EPA administrator Lisa P. Jackson to move ahead with an endangerment finding on the grounds that it was scientifically warranted and would help push Congress to enact a national cap on greenhouse gases. Unlike President George W. Bush, President Obama backs such mandatory limits.
On Thursday Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who chairs the Environment and Public Works Committee, said, "There is no question that the law and the facts require an endangerment finding, and it should happen without further delay, and I believe it will."
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
17 Comments so far
Show AllFinally...We've been waiting a full decade for this, though too much time has been wasted.
Business fear of "prolonging the depression" is an excuse since they said this in 1999 when we tried to pass Kyoto. Like better wages, the management considers this a cost, a harm to their bottom line (creates a company v. government/environmentalist mentality). Until they accept that a stable environment is not only a prerequsite for business, but for society as a whole, I can only expect more opposition.
As always, The Chamber of Commerce is only concerned with short-term profits.
Capitalism in general demands short-term profit.
Obviously, "business groups" exist on a different planet than the rest of us. So they should be encouraged to go live on that planet while the rest of us take the necessary measures to try to curb global climate chaos.
Maybe they can hitch a ride on the next Space Shuttle and be dropped off on Mars, where they wouldn't have to worry their greedy little heads about regulations.
Taking the necessary steps to improve air quality would be a stimulus to the economy itself much as building dams and roads was during the recovery from the dirty thirties. Business can just come to terms with the fact that they have been getting a pretty classy ride with tax breaks and incentives for a very long time. The free market now needs them to kick in some of their accumulated stash, just another market adjustment. Suck it up boys.
This is one of the reasons that I happily voted for Obama: to have government agencies actually do their mandated jobs and produce reports that comport with what is actually going on, not what corporate interests want.
"Reconcile your statement with Treasury's actions with regard to banks." I'll certainly agree and as to the "business interests" mentioned in the article, well... Fuck "business interests" -- I'm tired of hearing the arguments from the pathologically criminal minds of those who run those criminal institutions known as corporations -- more for us and to hell with everyone else. This is the capitalist mindset which is destroying the planet.
If everybody wasn't so bent on saving every last human and if the actual numbers of humans are reduced to a reasonable number(well under 1,000,000,000 people total) then the human suffering would not be near the problem that it is. And what bewilders me is the unacceptableness of even trying to come with ways to reduce the human footprint on this planet in a less than disasterous way is just as blastphemous as thinking that no human should ever die. I have no doubt that that creep who dressed up as santa claus, went to his in-laws house and shot to death all those people and then torched the house more than deserved death and he did take care of himself in the end. I know that it is not possible to determine in most cases if someone will do something such as that guy did or the shooter a Va Tech but if it starts, all it would take is that one person with a weapon and in definite realization about what is happeining to stop it.
I see it as if the population of the planet is 6.6 billion people and if the percentages are close and 10% of a group are hostile and dangerous that means that 660,000,000 people are of a considerable threat to the other people, bigger than most countries on the planet and at least as twice as big as the population of the USA.
talifeather:
There has never been a stable climate in all of our recorded history.
As we keep cooling and potentially entering something similiar to the Maunder Minn, the people who keep saying the earth is warming will keep losing their crediblity.
Take a look at the climate models for the past 3 years. Their track record is not one that you would want to take to the bank.
If we are cooling, then why are glaciers in retreat virtually everywhere? Why are migratory birds arriving in areas a few days earlier (warmer spring) than in previous decades?
Admittedly, long-term (on the order of the lifetimes of societies and empires) climate is never stable, but existing physical data and known correlations between CO2 and temperature (through archealogical cross analysis with Antarctic ice cores) indicates strongly we should reduce man-made emissions. (In fact, given how measured warming is more than what the models are predicting, we're probably underestimating positive feedback; we definitely need to curb emissions and reduce existing CO2 levels.) Why should monthly profits sacrfice a generation's future?
Of course, scientifically, we cannot rule out every possible confounding factor, but the current model of man-made global warming is, as of now, the strongest assumption. The fact that freakish weather is more common in the last decade only highlights the need for action.
Propaganda from the very gates of hell. I can never decide if the idiots that claim the planet is cooling are paid shills for the coal companies or just stupid people who all believe the same dumb talking points.
The planet is warming and there is absolutely no doubt of it. Glaciers that I walked on in the 80's in California and Alaska are no longer present in the areas that I hiked on them. The California glacier is gone and the Alaskan glacier retreated six miles up the valley it carved.
The arctic ice cap is melting in both surface area and volume and the last two summers have had the lowest ice extent ever recorded. Ice shelves off the coast of Canada that have ice tens of thousands of years old are calving off and floating away.
Methane laden tundra that has been frozen for over 40,000 years in Candada and Siberia is melting and releasing megatons of methane and CO2 into the atmosphere. Mammoth shit that was frozen solid from times before men walked into the americas is heating up as compost.
The denialist idiots all believe the earth is only 6,000 years old anyway and are willing to disregard any and all scientific evidence to the contrary. If they don't agree with it, it doesn't exist. Just a little more bad weather, every year.
"The denialist idiots all believe the earth is only 6,000 years old anyway and are willing to disregard any and all scientific evidence to the contrary. If they don't agree with it, it doesn't exist..."
"all believe the earth is only 6,000 years old"--"willing to disregard any and all scientific evidence to the contrary"????? Such sweeping statements and attempts to brand all who question or dispute your "Inconvenient Truth" as some kind of neanderthal or religious fundamentalist or oil company shill is certainly not the case and in my opinion detracts from your position. Makes you appear more like "THEM" whom you call idiots.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. If you see flaws in the science behind global warming predictions (including how they come up with confidence intervals), then write it up and publish it in a refereed journal. Until that time, I am going with the scientific consensus and the IPCC reports.
Biochar. That's the one word you need to know to keep your grandchildren from fighting off the cannibal hordes from atop an earth mound fortress between planet shaking storms.
Biochar is finely ground charcoal, mixed with compost and plowed into the soil as fertilizer. On some tests of particularly poor soils biochar improves crop yields and biomass growth by 400 percent in multi-year trials from a single application. All this while it sequesters atmospheric carbon and prevents normal releases of greenhouse gas from croplands.
It takes 5 pounds of charcoal buried in soil to offset the emissions of a single gallon of gas. That's 50 lbs. of charcoal for every ten gallon average purchase. That's the only known way of removing carbon from the air and getting a net energy profit.
Biochar, terra preta, agrichar, whatever you want to call it please look up the term and spread the knowledge of what you read.
Pangolin
Thanks for that info. THings like this are very important for everyone. Practical steps and solutions are what we need to help us cope and try and beat the coming...struggles.
The scenario you describe is bleak but very possibly real... With two young daughters I am devastated that the world I thought I was bringing them into very likely won't exist. I get a little carried away sometimes, but I try to teach them things I think they will need to know. We have a garden, although I don't force them to do a whole lot in it, or haven't yet. But my oldest is 12 now so this year might be more mandatory.
If I talk too much about all the problems in the world right now, they put up a block, they don't want to hear it. I don't talk like the world is ending but I might preach about not wasting and conserving and appreciating what one has. I try to show skills like how to be resouceful etc. But no matter what I do, I have days when I realize their world may be nothing like mine was...
Young people are really our salvation. When I hear about what the youth are doing, many of them are the fighters out there, protesting and trying to put a stop to the "shit". It does give me hope...
our team Airambulanceinternational.com has been a global service and ready for any disaster. so sad to spell out a disaster but we really have to face it for its now a clear and present danger. Our hope will be proclaim if can go hand in hand fulfilling our duty to care our planet. So we from air ambulance team get involve this coming mar 28, 2009 to switch off lights from 8:00 to 9:00 pm.