Skip to comments.EPA Formally Declares CO2 a Dangerous Pollutant
Posted on 12/10/2009 8:55:25 AM PST by myknowledge
Step aside, elected Members of Congress. If you can’t pass cap and trade legislation, The Environmental Protection Agency will move in with massively complex and costly regulations that would micromanage just about every aspect of the economy. They announced today that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases (GHGs) threaten public health and the environment.
Since 85 percent of the U.S. economy runs on fossil fuels that emit carbon dioxide, imposing a cost on CO2 is equivalent to placing an economy-wide tax on energy use. The kind of industrial-strength EPA red tape that the agency could enforce in the name of global warming would result in millions of dollars in compliance costs. These are unnecessary costs that businesses will inevitably pass on to the American consumer, slow economic growth and kill jobs. Although the crafted rules say only facilities that emit 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year or more will be affected, businesses fear the exemption may not hold up in court and could now be imposed on many smaller commercial buildings, farms, restaurants, churches and small businesses.
Even EPA administrator Lisa Jackson acknowledged top-down regulations would be more costly than a cap and trade system, saying, “Legislation is so important because it will combine the most efficient, most economy-wide, least costly, least disruptive way to deal with carbon dioxide pollution,” she recently stated, adding that “we get further faster without top-down regulation.” Of course, this isn’t a legitimate argument to pass cap and trade legislation. Cap and trade, a climate treaty and EPA regulations are the three ugly step-sisters of climate policy. Yet they’re trudging forward anyway.
The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis study of the economic effects of carbon dioxide regulations found cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses of $7 trillion by 2029 single-year GDP losses exceeding $600 billion in some years, energy cost increases of 30 percent or more, and annual job losses exceeding 800,000 for several years. Hit particularly hard is manufacturing, which will see job losses in some industries that exceed 50 percent.
And George Will writes that any emissions reduction targets, whether they come from the EPA, cap and trade, or a Copenhagen treaty are simply unattainable: “Barack Obama, understanding the histrionics required in climate-change debates, promises that U.S. emissions in 2050 will be 83 percent below 2005 levels. If so, 2050 emissions will equal those in 1910, when there were 92 million Americans. But there will be 420 million Americans in 2050, so Obama’s promise means that per capita emissions then will be about what they were in 1875. That. Will. Not. Happen.”
In the press release today, the EPA stated, “Science overwhelmingly shows greenhouse gas concentrations at unprecedented levels due to human activity,” and that “GHGs are the primary driver of climate change.” When the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the initial endangerment finding in April, administrator Jackson noted that the agency “relied heavily upon the major findings and conclusions from recent assessments of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPPC].” Not only does Climategate seriously call this into question but so do the 700 dissenting scientists refuting claims made by the IPCC report. That 700 figure is more than 13 times the number of scientists (52) who had a direct role in the IPCC report.
Regardless of one’s view of carbon dioxide and global warming, environmental improvement and economic growth do not have to be mutually exclusive; in fact, most of the time environmental improvements come as a result of economic development. Companies will innovate and invest their resources to become more energy efficient because it will save them money in both the short and the long run.
In his New York Times column over the weekend, Jared Diamond points to Wal-Mart as an example: “Obviously, a business can save money by finding ways to spend less while maintaining sales. This is what Wal-Mart did with fuel costs, which the company reduced by $26 million per year simply by changing the way it managed its enormous truck fleet. Instead of running a truck’s engine all night to heat or cool the cab during mandatory 10-hour rest stops, the company installed small auxiliary power units to do the job. In addition to lowering fuel costs, the move eliminated the carbon dioxide emissions equivalent to taking 18,300 passenger vehicles off the road.”
Increased regulations and red tape will stifle that innovation by reducing the amount of resources that can be invested efficiently. They will have disruptive impacts on the economy and on living standards that will ripple throughout the country to reduce the earth’s temperature a few tenths of a degree.
For more, see The Heritage Foundation’s full analysis on the how EPA regulations would hijack the economy.
This is Earth's valuable fertilizer: Carbon Dioxide, or CO2.
These criminals need to be stopped.
Don’t hold your breath, unless your favorite color is blue.
Is there any truth to the rumor that we are going to be limited to the number of times we will be able to exhale in any given day?
In 2012 I hope the Palin Administration will prosecute and jail the power-grabbing, anti-Constitutional EPA leadership (right after the agency is eliminated)
In order to reduce CO2 emissions, I propose a national “Stop Exhaling Day”. However, only liberals, statists, communists and those who voted for Obama will be required to participate.
Imagine, now they can pass a Global “Head Tax” on every single person in the world.
Expect the blue helmets to show up at your door if you don’t pay, well or they will show up to usurp leaders who don’t pay that is.
In related news, the FDA has approved Brawndo as a new plant fertilizer.
It's got what plants crave! It's got electrolytes!
The take over is nearly complete. First the economy. Second, healthcare. And, third, the environment. It’s all about CONTROL.
The anointed one has done more in eleven months to destroy the US than ALL the Congress critters of the past 200+ years, combined.
It’s time to take back the country.
Exactly. Increasing CO2 is an unalloyed boon to all life on Earth.
The EPA is a clear and present danger to the American population. They are a ship of fools.
You are falling for the slight of hand. The EPA ONLY does what Congress want’s them to do. CONGRESS is the bad guy in this story, nobody else.
Begin to reform Congress in 2010!
Call for complete REFORM in 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Then begin to clean up the mess.
You just used yours all up for today.
Good luck and God speed.
MYSELF6 FORMALLY DECLARES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT A DANGEROUS POLUTANT.
This is absolute madness that would make a Monty Python skit seem not so absurd.
When will the majority of Americans realize that email, talking, snail mail, tea parties, and just bitching will not do it?
Thanks to all the anti-smoking nazis, their unwitting dupes and the panic over second-hand smoke, governments at all levels have the tools in place to regulate who can exhale what and where they can exhale it. Now, by government decree, we are all exhaling dangerous pollutants, expect these statutes to start being used to corral people into certain zones and place a whole lot of public lands off limits.
Think I'm kidding? Just wait....
This is a great idea. If they cut back the rest of us will still be able to use our barbeques and fill up before sundown.
I think a lot of folks already do realize it...
They are simply waiting for the spark...
Lets get together a bunch of volunteers to go out and actively reduce the level of pollutants being pumped into the atmosphere!
I think we should concentrate on the federal capital so as to help raise awareness to the real crises that is presented by letting noxious gas factories continue to exhaust their CO2 into our atmosphere.
Seems like the best way to cut down on CO2 is to ban and sports activities, football, jogging, etc. Anything that makes a human breathe heavily is surely creating too much CO2.
No more bicycles, no skate boards, no exercize of any kind. Uses up too much oxygen.
EPA: too much authority in one place.
Don’t think you’re kidding at all.
I’ve long asked *why* it’s the “B of ATF”.
Why lump ~those~ particular 3 things to together?
There is no logical commonality.
[unless of course it’s a strategic plan to outlaw them one by one]
I, for one, will LMAO when the limo libs can’t have any more of their precious snooty wine tasting parties or champagne.
They stole it from a convenience store in the America where I grew up.
Don’t forget sex....when done ‘properly’.
I think a lot of folks already do realize it...
They are simply waiting for the spark...
I agree, everyone is waiting for that *spark*
We're not supposed to have unelected, unaccountable, unrepresentative agencies running the nation's economy like this. And they are doing it based on absolute junk "science" that has already been debunked as a complete hoax and fraud!
Seriously, we may as well just have a King with absolute power. Our "representative" government is total sham, an enemy of The People, a de facto dictatorship, and we are nothing but meek and helpless subjects.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.