Industry groups and Republicans have long expressed concern that the announcement would lead to broad, crippling regulations.
"Today's action by the EPA is the beginning of a regulatory barrage that will destroy jobs, raise energy prices for consumers and undermine America's global competitiveness," said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. "It now appears EPA's regulatory reach will find its way into schools, hospitals, assisted living facilities and just about any activity that meets minimum thresholds in the Clean Air Act."
Charles Drevna, president of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, said that while EPA's announcement comes as no surprise, the agency failed to address the valid concerns raised by stakeholders and consumers.
"Should the Obama Administration choose to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, it would constitute EPA's single largest and potentially most complex assertion of authority over the U.S. economy and Americans' lifestyles," Drevna said in a statement. "Such regulation would have an enormous impact on every facet of the economy, businesses large and small, as well as on the general population."
EPA will accept public comment on the draft 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. The agency is also planning to hold two public hearings on the matter next month.
Reprinted from Greenwire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500
See what we're tweeting about
17 Comments
Add CommentAs a carbon based life form, I find the inclusion of CO2 in this utterly ridiculous in the extreme. Someone please explain to me how 380 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is considered "dangerous" when my exhalation is at 40,000 ppm and I appear to suffer no ill effects from it's residency in my lungs, nor have I from the day I was born?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is so utterly insane that it defies description!
Shoshin, didn't you get the memo on the end to scientific facts and the adoption to feel good "theory". Stupid is in, and proper research and true evidence is banned. Smart grid "1984" is just around the corner.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you are not sold on this farce, you must go to a retraining camp. They will retrain your mind.
The ecobots (Obomabots) will be comming to get both of us, see you there, maybe I will learn how to spell there.
@Shoshin,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"As a carbon based life form, I find the inclusion of CO2 in this utterly ridiculous in the extreme. Someone please explain to me how 380 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is considered "dangerous" when my exhalation is at 40,000 ppm and I appear to suffer no ill effects from it's residency in my lungs, nor have I from the day I was born?"
You said this before and you get the same answer.
"Have you tried putting a plastic bag over your head taping the ends to a airtight seal and see what the results are?"
"Stupid is in, and proper research and true evidence is banned."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou have evidence for this assertion. Primary documentation?
Trent1492, One of the models showes the British Isles as a desert by 2020, hard science. Remember they had to change the name, global warming is dead- man made climate change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Trent1492, One of the models showes the British Isles as a desert by 2020, hard science. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat model is this? Care to link to the peer reviewed research?
"Remember they had to change the name, global warming is dead- man made climate change."
Let me demonstrate how you have swallowed fossil fuel industry lies. The International Panel on Climate Change was established in the 1980's.
Trent1492, Who do you think is Quietly funding the green movement in the U.S.? Al G lost all his c cr money in the last crash, but now he has more money, are you not the least bit curious, who would invest in this proven lier.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is to the forign oil intrests to keep our feet in clay and to prevent us from becoming indepent- a kiss, a bow and a post office income is very telling .
You seem relitively inteligent why act like a drone- calling people names is an old SDS tractic.
Ask; who benifits and follow the money, then work backwards and you will find most the truth.
Geo political orgs. are famously corrupt.
As for me, I have never been for sale, and I know the consensus people are sheep, funded by the people who need a answer their way.
"Trent1492, Who do you think is Quietly funding the green movement in the U.S.?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo you are not going to answer my question are you? You made a claim about a computer model. I want primary evidence
"Al G lost all his c cr money in the last crash, but now he has more money, are you not the least bit curious, who would invest in this proven lier."
I am sorry Fish but unsubstantiated claims by anonymous people get very little credit in my book. BTW did you ever stop to think the mutually contradicting claims of Al Gore losing all his money and funding the entire environmental movement himself?
"It is to the forign oil intrests to keep our feet in clay and to prevent us from becoming indepent- a kiss, a bow and a post office income is very telling ."
The above makes no sense.
"You seem relitively inteligent why act like a drone- calling people names is an old SDS tractic."
Insults but no argument with primary evidence.
"Ask; who benifits and follow the money, then work backwards and you will find most the truth.
Geo political orgs. are famously corrupt."
Why the fossil fuel companies benefit the most by lying and delaying action. Why do you blindly swallow everything they say?
"As for me, I have never been for sale, and I know the consensus people are sheep, funded by the people who need a answer their way."
We at Exxon-Mobile want to thank you for your mindless support of our product regardless of the consequences for your fellow citizens and the environment they inhabit.
Thank You.
Fishman:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are people on this board whose comments prove more about what is wrong in the pro-AGW religion than anything I have seen yet.
My advice is to ignore them. They won't go away, but you take their soapbox away and that hurts more than anything else.
@ Fish,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou going to answer my questions about Mercury and Venus?
"My advice is to ignore them."
Right! Why let reality intrude?
Even the Brits are giving up on AGW
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/scarewatch/wet_office.pdf
i think mercury from cement plants, so2 from power plants , methan not recaptured from land fills, which should be designed and tapped to get a power return.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo now, even the scientific community is cowardly. First it was "but I didn't inhale", now it will be "but I didn't exhale", which now contributes to global warming. Are you kidding me!!! CO2, Really??? Exhaling is now a poluting act? So, if I prove that almost everyone who gets the flu wears tennis shoes, that I can get the EPA to ban tennis shoes?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"So now, even the scientific community is cowardly. First it was "but I didn't inhale", now it will be "but I didn't exhale", which now contributes to global warming. Are you kidding me!!!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat you can not tell the difference between respiration and the excavation and emission of carbon that has been sequestered in the ground for millions and tens of millions in the space of two centuries is a telling indictment of your gullibility.
The EPA has decreed that atmospheric CO2 is becoming a danger to human health. Yet they have not released to the public media, as far as I can find, any scientific evidence to support this declaration. Are we becoming a nation of governance by edict? What a shame.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhatever happens would result from a deficit of O2 and not an excess of CO2. Were you on the EPA committee that drafted the most recent decree?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Dreadsocks,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The EPA has decreed that atmospheric CO2 is becoming a danger to human health. Yet they have not released to the public media, as far as I can find, any scientific evidence to support this declaration."
I find it amazing that you say this when the link is provided that gives that information in the article. Pitiful
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/FinalFindings.pdf
Do the Deniers not realize that in the Age of the Internet it is so much harder to lie?
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/FinalFindings.pdf
From just the table of contents on the linked PDF.
"III. EPA’s Approach for Evaluating the Evidence Before It
A. The Science on Which the Decisions Are Based "
Why do you guys think that your outrageous lies will go unnoticed and unchallenged?
"Are we becoming a nation of governance by edict? What a shame."
No, but apparently right wing hysteria is in full swing.