More work for the EPA? New legislation would charge the already taxed EPA with overseeing more programs to mitigate climate change.
Image: FLICKR/KROSSBOW
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Under House Democrats' draft climate and energy bill, U.S. EPA would be tasked with launching a raft of major climate programs, dramatically boosting the workload of a cash-strapped agency already struggling to meet a long list of regulatory deadlines.
The draft directs EPA to implement several new programs aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions and boosting transportation efficiency – this for an agency trying to revisit Bush-era regulations returned for review by federal courts and set new protection policies for air and water pollution.
"EPA has an extremely heavy workload," said Frank O'Donnell, president of the advocacy group Clean Air Watch. "I think that it will be absolutely crucial that any new task for EPA is accompanied by adequate resources; otherwise, we might just end up with words on a piece of paper."
And while final legislation may differ from the draft bill put forward by House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman of California and Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, it offers a blueprint of the new responsibilities EPA could be charged with.
Among other things, the House bill would require the agency to set emissions standards on greenhouse gas emission sources that are not covered by the cap-and-trade allowance system and create a "strategic reserve" of about 2.5 billion emission allowances to create a buffer in case prices rise faster than expected. EPA would also be required to set emission standards for mobile pollution sources like locomotives and marine vessels, enter into agreements to prevent greenhouse gas emissions caused by international deforestation and develop procedures for rating buildings' energy efficiency.
The bill also would authorize new EPA funding for power plants and industrial operations to use carbon capture and storage technologies, viewed as vital to the coal industry's long-term viability in a carbon-limited economy.
Notably, the bill would not require EPA to regulate carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases as criteria pollutants or hazardous pollutants under the Clean Air Act. The bill also explicitly states that New Source Review (NSR) rules for power plants would not apply to greenhouse gases.
Observers recognize EPA will need more money to meet the new mandates. But with increased agency funding that President Obama proposed in his draft budget and leadership from climate experts who have been tapped to fill the agency's upper echelons, people familiar with the agency's inner workings are confident EPA can handle the workload.
"I think the real question is: Is this something that should be done? And if it is something we all agree would be protective of the public health and ecological system, then I think the funding should follow," said Rogene Henderson, former chairwoman of the agency's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. "The EPA would be an agency that, appropriately funded, could handle that."
David Bookbinder, Sierra Club's chief climate counsel, said the agency would not be overburdened by the new directives if provided with the nearly $3 billion increase in agency funding that Obama proposed for fiscal 2010 and allowed to prioritize projects under the legislation.
EPA will also need to fill in key positions in its upper ranks, he said. But with Gina McCarthy – Obama's nominee to lead the air office – scheduled for a Senate confirmation hearing tomorrow, "that's happening," he said.
See what we're tweeting about
22 Comments
Add CommentGreat. Here come the Greenshirts. Eco-fascism has arrived.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'll take Eco-fascism over our evolving old-fashioned regular fascism anyday.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMabey they'll put a tax on all the hot air that comes out of your head...;-)
(The wink makes us OK, right?)
I'd rather have my child wear a 'Greenshirt' than lose years of his/her life to air pollution, a burden the future will have to bear at this rate, among others. But maybe that is just me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWait, I didn't get my 'Greenshirt' in the mail...do you think its lost...? I did however get this shirt that says 'Responsibility'...maybe there was a confusion at the post office.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBetter a green shirt than a green shroud?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLegislation this sweeping will have unintended consequences. For example, the implementation of cap and trade will suppliers, will make domestic oil shale sourced oil, or even Canadian oil sands uneconomic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe free market (or whatever is left of it by then) will then create the perverse situation which forces the US to seek even more oil from overseas from countries who don't like us, as their oil is more "CO2 friendly". This will happen immediately.
It is physically impossible for any alternative energy sources to fill in the gap created by the cap and trade policy as the technologies that are championed are either embryonic, not scalable or will face their own legal challenges.
Radical environmental groups will find fertile ground for launching lawsuits under the new EPA regs to stop everything from new bridges or auto plant upgrades contemplated by the stimulus package to wind farms, all under the guise of requiring a GHG impact report.
This legislation is ill conceived and too far reaching. And that's if everyone plays nicely. The prospect for abuse is staggering.
A carbon tax would be so much simpler to implement and wouldn't require all that crazy infrastructure. While we do need to regulate the poisons people spew into their environments, we don't need to take care of it quite like this. This is going to be a big expensive mess with lots of loop-holes that will allow people to work around and abuse the system.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMmmm, someone's putting two big scoops of Fear in your Raisin Bran in the morning...I'm so sick of it on both sides. It seems Fear is the only way to reach the public these days. The global warming side is just as guily, but lets look at both sides...if we ignore the issue, there are serious environmental issues, being portrayed as catastrophic, when we really don't know. I personally believe that there is no doubt that fragile ecosytems will be serverly affected, but all the info is no doubt driving fear into the public. This I think creates resistance, and then we hear from the other side. There will be world-wide catastrophic econimic and social consenquences for trying to deal with the issue. So what, bottom line is the PUBLIC has to vote, not businessmen, not scientists, it is up to the people to find the direction. What are they supposed to believe when you have two sides like this in opposition, nothing will get done.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShoshin, at least science has trends and imperical evidence it uses in its fear mongering (sp?):
"For example, the implementation of cap and trade will suppliers, WILL make domestic oil shale sourced oil, or even Canadian oil sands uneconomic. "
"The free market (or whatever is left of it by then) WILL then create the perverse situation which forces the US to seek even more oil from overseas from countries who don't like us, as their oil is more "CO2 friendly". This WILL happen immediately. "
"It IS physically impossible for any alternative energy sources to fill in the gap created by the cap and trade policy as the technologies that are championed are either embryonic, not scalable or WILL face their own legal challenges."
"Radical environmental groups WILL find fertile ground for launching lawsuits under the new EPA regs to stop everything from new bridges or auto plant upgrades"
Since when did you become a prophet? Where is the logic behind any of this. Not extremist data trends, but where has this happened in the past, and what path are we following to insure the same result?
There will be no ALL SAVING solution for both the economy and environment immediatly. There will be compromises.
"which forces the US to seek even more oil from overseas from countries who don't like us, as their oil is more "CO2 friendly". "
NEWS FLASH this bill is to try to get us OFF of oil, not to find a cleaner oil to use. This may be the immediate result while the technology fills in, but this will not be a long lasting effect. ...
What will happen to funding for clean energy when it is in Big Business's interest to do so? You think the economy will hold onto old policies and old methods just to be stubborn! The biggest and best industries know they need to stay current with technology to reduce cost and increase production. This means clean energy...it is FREE! The only cost at this time is research...in time we won't have to worry about that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWay to try and get everyone upset over speculation.
Do you really think that helps? How about you provide an alternate solution...it's easy to be scared, and it's easy to scare. Your thoughts are very valuable in generating a plan that will work, but it has to work with the other side and make sure your unrealistic 'possibilities' don't happen.
"Radical environmental groups will find fertile ground for launching lawsuits under the new EPA regs to stop everything from new bridges... "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCome on! Does this sound a little rediculous to anyone else?
Shoshin, you seem to know some extreme radical environmentalists and they seem to be giving you inside plans on what they might do if that situation possibly arises if this energy policy gets passed. WILL is a strong word for all of those cases.
Bridges aren't built for profit, they are built out of necessity, and they will get built no matter the energy policy. If they resistance from the EPA, then they will find a cleaner way to build it.
You act like there is some sort of vengence to be had...this is not a political debate, you seem to want to make it one!
Actually, yes, this is a political debate. Politicians are involved. Please explain to how it cannot be political?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI guess I must have struck a raw nerve and woke you guys up. Sorry about that, but I stand by my "prophesy":
Under a cap and trade system, the US will become more dependent on unfriendly foreign oil. Either that or taxes (yes, carbon taxes are actually taxes) will drive our standard of living to that of a third world banana republic and we'll be reduced to asking the French for foreign aid.
Face it; we can't even build windfarms without people screaming about dead birds. What will be the outcry when it is time to pave the Arizona desert with photovoltaic cells or mirrors?
Nuclear is out. All the rivers are dammed, or dams are now being removed. Drilling for oil is under siege. Everybody wants cheap, clean, transportable energy.
You can have cheap energy. You can have clean energy. You can have transportable energy. You just can't have all three at the same time.
More erroneous claims....and from where? Didn't there used to be a cap-and-trade system used in the early 90's for the clean air act? [YES!] I don't remember us going into a huge downward spiral into a 3rd world nation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut you seem so sure, and its hard to argue with someone so positive they can see the future...and its bleak...so if you are sure you're correct, do you promise to leave the US when this system gets voted into place?
agenthucky:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are times when utterly idiotic policies must be called such. As to your comment as to me leaving, please go bully someone else.
You are right, I apologize, but you seem to be focusing in on my joking around rather than my point which was that what would you do if we do end up going with a cap and trade? I mean, of course you will stick around to see what happens...it is not doomed to fail, but you say it is! It is only healthy to aproach these subjects with skepticism, but to the length you bring it, it sound rediculous...third world countries, denail of critical projects...a economical stalemate, borrowing from the French. Unjustified skepticism just comes out as what it really is, denial.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis idiotic policy was only chosen because it had worked in the past with air pollution!
This is the last space I will take up in this forum, you can continue your charade without interruption. It isn't you I am worried about, it is the people who are too lazy to think for themselves and start reading your fiction...because that's all it is, stories inspired to drive emotion into the reader. It is not however, informative.
Agenthucky:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI appreciate your candor. The point that I am raising is that Cap and Trade has nothing whatsoever to do with limiting pollution, and will have no affect whatsoever on the environment. It is a purely political solution to a purely political need.
The powers that are granted to the EPA (IMO) are far to sweeping and unwarranted. And government powers, like taxes, are never ever returned to us by the government once granted. Our lives and our liberties will get that much smaller.
There is no end to the stupid assumptions politicols- we will all pay for the never ending junk sciance. Eco miss info's poster child Al G, couldn''t tell the truth if his life depended on it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust in case you where not paying attention the mean temp of the seas has declined 1.2 C from the high 8 years ago. That is the loss from the starting point.
The carbon clowns are comming and if smart people do not speak up we are all in for it.
"The powers that are granted to the EPA (IMO) are far to sweeping and unwarranted."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe industry can not and will not regulate itself, that is the reality. Industry has mislead the public and is trying everything in its power to prevent any action. The EPA not only needs to regulate carbon emissions it is granted that power by the Congress, a power affirmed by the U.S courts.
"And government powers, like taxes, are never ever returned to us by the government once granted."
False. Recent history has a number of examples of taxes being repealed. The Telecom Tax of 1898 being repealed in 2006 the most recent example. All of this of course ignores the reality of the Geophysics.
"Just in case you where not paying attention the mean temp of the seas has declined 1.2 C from the high 8 years ago."
False. Ocean Cooling Corrected.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/printall.php
"Our lives and our liberties will get that much smaller."
Translation: My freedom to pollute regardless of the consequences should not be inhibited because it spoils my fun.
"There is no end to the stupid assumptions politicols- we will all pay for the never ending junk sciance."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe at Exxon-Mobile want to thank you for your tireless and mindless support of our product regardless of the consequences.
Thank You.
Trent 1492:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour comments are indicative of the type of political correct nonsense that is framing this debate. When someone disagrees with the AGW hypothesis, you immediately assume that they are "Polluters", "Deniers" or give them some other objectionable or offensive label in a attempt to intimidate, marginalize and bully them. Please explain to me ho these techniqwques should not be termed "eco-fascim"?
The simple fact of the matter is that there are no data of any kind whatsoever that establish any type of a causal relationship between increased CO2 levels and increased global temperature. That is a fact so get over it.
Correlation does not prove causality.
"The simple fact of the matter is that there are no data of any kind whatsoever that establish any type of a causal relationship between increased CO2 levels and increased global temperature. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry but it is fact that has been known since the 19th century. Disagree? Then tell me what what John Tyndall was doing measuring the absorption property of CO2?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TyndallsSetupForMeasuringRadiantHeatAbsorptionByGases_annotated.jpg
"That is a fact so get over it. "
No, you engaging in outright false hoods. Disagree? Then tell us what John Tyndall was doing.
"When someone disagrees with the AGW hypothesis,..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is not a hypothesis it is a theory. Please go learn the difference.
"Please explain to me ho these techniqwques should not be termed "eco-fascim"?
Your not making any sense. Did you not take your pill today?
So at what point are you going to answer any of my points? Was the Telecom Tax of 1898 rescinded or not?
Did John Tyndall demonstrate CO2's absorption of heat or not?
Is the ocean warming or not? Remember your assertion that the oceans are cooling and me linking you to peer reviewed papers contradicting that statement?
I don't think this country has a dime to waste on much of this frivolous chasing of our tails. Greenhouse gasses and global warming may be a real phenomena, but I'm not convinced it's man made. It's the breath of God I tell you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this