EPA to Declare CO2 a Dangerous Pollutant
WASHINGTON - Carbon dioxide will soon be declared a dangerous pollutant - a move that could help propel slow-moving climate-change legislation on Capitol Hill, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency said Monday.
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told reporters that a formal "endangerment finding," which would trigger federal regulations on greenhouse gas emissions, probably would "happen in the next months."
Jackson announced her timeline even as top senators said they were delaying plans to introduce legislation that would set new limits on carbon dioxide emissions. Senators had been scheduled to unveil legislation next Tuesday, but the date has now been pushed back to later in September.
The House narrowly passed a broad energy and climate-change bill in June, but supporters have moved more slowly in the Senate, where the issue has been trumped recently by work on the health care overhaul.
The EPA kick-started the regulatory process in April when it proposed declaring carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases as pollutants that jeopardize the public health and welfare. EPA scientists believe the greenhouse gases contribute to global warming by trapping heat in the Earth's atmosphere.
The EPA can formalize the finding anytime, now that it has closed a 60-day public comment period that netted more than 300,000 responses.
A formal endangerment finding would obligate the agency to regulate greenhouse gas pollution under the Clean Air Act - even if Congress doesn't pass a final climate-change bill.
President Obama and Jackson have said they would prefer that Congress - rather than the EPA - take the lead in implementing new greenhouse gas limits. Businesses and energy industry leaders also have largely favored congressional action over EPA-imposed limits, because they believe lawmakers are better positioned to combine economic safeguards with any new carbon cap.
"Legislation is so important, because it will combine the most efficient, most economy-wide, least costly (and) least disruptive way to deal with carbon dioxide pollution," Jackson said. "We get further faster without top-down regulation."
But Jackson insisted the EPA would continue on a path that began when the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that greenhouse gases qualified as pollutants and could be regulated if the government determined they threatened the public.
"Two years is a long time for this country to wait for us to respond to the Supreme Court's ruling," Jackson said.
Supporters of climate change legislation are hoping the threat of EPA-mandated limits will spur congressional action.
Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and John Kerry, D-Mass., had been planning to introduce their own climate change bill next week. But in a joint statement Monday, the pair said they were delaying the bill introduction until "later in September" because of the death of Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., Kerry's hip surgery in August, and Kerry's membership on the Finance Committee, which is negotiating health care.
Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, the top Republican on Boxer's Environment and Public Works Committee, said the delay "is emblematic of the division and disarray in the Democratic Party over cap-and-trade and health care legislation."
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
9 Comments so far
Show All"Otherwise CO2 is food for green plants and is a natural product of respiration for almost all life forms."
Dammit Joe, did you have to go and let the cat out of the bag? Now we're going to be required to hold our breaths for two hours a day or give up sex!
Deep breath in........................
This is a fairly useless, confusing, way to define things. It dilutes responsibility for global warming and has little educational value for the public.
TOO MUCH CO2 in the atmosphere is dangerous. (> 350 ppm, as bbr-001 says). You get that from burning fossil fuels, primarily. When we burn oil and gas, carbon that was sequestered millions of years ago is unleashed into the atmosphere in enormous quantitites, too much to be reabsorbed by plant life.
Otherwise CO2 is food for green plants and is a natural product of respiration for almost all life forms.
Joe
And what will we use to put the fizz into our beer and soda? Or to boost the hemp potency?
hmmm, just think, with CO2 declared a "dangerous pollutant", each and every human being can be charged with a crime against nature. Of course the government can 'forgive' the crime with the payment of a 'head tax', or for those heavy breathers (you know who you are), order them exterminated. Wood fired stoves outlawed, animal ranchers taxed extra, house and field fires fined.... what a money maker this can be.... "what we have here is an opportunity to make a profit"
Significant new findings indicate that NOAA temperature data is biased by heat pumps, pavement, and even nearby sewage digesters. They began painting the Patterson boxes, which house the temperature recording equipment, with latex in the 1970s only to find that this too causes a high temperature bias (+.5 F).
Evidence continues to pour in that mythological green house effects from CO2 are largely inconsequential. However, big brother refuses to hear further dissent on the issue.
This is now a purely political battle and an excuse to subvert the wildly successful free enterprise system. Scientific evidence from the private sector is not allowed into the government controlled media. The corrupt UN continues to lock out new evidence or scientific reason in the correction of their obviously flawed findings.
Cap and TRade is a thin facade for this parasitic attack on the US economy. It will destroy more than the US economy. Alternative technology to fossil fuels is an expensive fairy tale. There are those who just prefer to be a big fish in a little pond. They will fail again.
Generally, when a "parasitic attack on the US economy" is made (see military-industrial complex) there is someone who gains from it. Would you care to state who in the US benefits from destroying its economy?
Also, please share with us your source.
Sincerely,
The guy from the Banana Boat Song
I'm not sure that declaring CO2 a dangerous pollutant is the wise thing to do. It seems more of a knee-jerk reaction that will buy us nothing but (legal) trouble down the line.
I can understand doing this for nitrous sulfides etc and other pollutants that are NOT found widely in nature. But CO2 is is a core constituent of life on Earth, and mandatory for life's existence.
It would be like declaring H2O a terrorist organization. Yeah, a really stupid idea.
The Supremes said: If EPA determines a GHG threatens the public. Atmospheric CO2 in excess of 350 ppm threatens the public, in excess of 450 ppm will be a civilization threatening disaster. Done. Time to get to work.
According to NOAA the current CO2 level is 387.28 ppm. ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt
The purpose of the comprehensive energy bill, in the coal companies' eyes, is to legislate that CO2 is NOT a dangerous pollutant. As long as we don't have an energy bill the coal companies are in legal jeopardy.
Remember this when advocating for an energy bill with teeth. A toothless energy bill is worse than zero.