Skip to comments.Regulating CO2 Under the Clean Air Act—Not the Kind of Change We Have Been Waiting For
Posted on 10/17/2008 7:17:35 PM PDT by newbie2008
Yesterday, Bloomberg.com reported that Barack Obama believes that carbon dioxide endangers human health and welfare and thinks it should be regulated using the Clean Air Act.
What are the likely outcomes if carbon dioxide is regulated under the Clean Air Act?
Regulating carbon dioxide means regulating the activities that emit carbon dioxide. In the United States, 85% of the energy we use comes from sources that emit carbon dioxidecoal, petroleum, and natural gas. Regulating these sources of energy will increase prices to consumers (e.g. electricity and gasoline)and reduce the economic efficiency of the economy, leading to job losses and large reductions in economic growth.
The Heritage Foundations Center for Data Analysis has estimated the economic impacts of carbon dioxide regulation, finding that regulating carbon dioxide using the Clean Air Act would:
* Reduce aggregate gross domestic product by $6.9 trillion by 2029. * Reduce employment in the manufacturing sector by 2.9 million jobs by 2029. * Reduce employment in: o Mining by 7.4%; o Transportation and warehousing by 17%; o Durable manufacturing by 28%; o Textile mills by 28%; o Paper and paper products by 36%; o Plastics and rubber products by 54%; o Machinery manufacturing by 57%.
As the Center notes, The study measures only the likely impacts through 2029, at which point CO2 will have been cut by 31% below the 2005 level. The ultimate CO2 reduction target will likely exceed 70% by 2050.
Over 1.2 million business will need to get carbon dioxide emission permits from EPA.
Barak - keep your hands in the air and step away from the science counter. Only adults should play there.
And most certainly no one with a weak academic background such as you and your associates.
Breathing produces carbon dioxide. Is the government going to regulate that?
I believe that in some ways... they do, and have been for a while.
Under the Chicago Sheik’s administration, it looks like we’ll be required to buy “carbon credits” from Algore for every breath we take.
Carbon is the new sin tax. Nothing more. Just a way to tax people more while making some feel good about it.
Yeah...and your implanted microchip will automatically debit your bank account for excessive CO2 production....better learn not to pant while having sex.
LOL! Jogging is probably out too!
Nah, they'll just tax the heck out of it.
Don’t hold your breath on this one... Oh, wait.. maybe you ‘will’ have to hold your breath.
Ugh this is getting silly, make that scary silly.
I bet if someone started a company that sold carbon credits for breathing, some looney liberals would buy into it.
That's hysterical--you get the FR POTE (Post of the Evening) vote!
You can try breathing through your nose...clears up the sinuses.
There will be. I don’t think Camp Obummer is going to distinguish between farts cut loose by “the poor,” the middle class or “the rich.” I also expect Camp Obummer to heavily tax ‘beer farts’ cut loose by blue collar workers like Joe Sixpack. They’re destroying da “enviomen” donja know. Think polar bears, the Porcupine caribou herd and the baby seals. They’re all dying out. Icebergs are melting too.
The Obama administration will strenuously insist that Republicans cease this offensive carbon-producing activity. And don't assume that I'm kidding.
Don’t we have bigger fish to fry than “global warming” and “carbon credits”? Is America nuts? The planet will definitely get a whole lot warmer, if Iran gets their grubby hands on those Russian nukes!
The only surprise here is that Obamas advisers announced this now. Having EPA regulation GHGs under the Clean Air Act means dramatically higher costs for energy (85% of our energy comes from coal, petroleum, and natural gas). Obama would require over 1.2 million medium to large buildings to get permits because they emit GHGs.This is the EPA's Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR). At this page you can read the proposed
* 1 million mid-sized to large buildingsthis includes 10% of all churches, 1/5 of all food service businesses, half of the buildings in the lodging industry, and 92,000 health care facilities.
* 200,000 manufacturing operations
* 20,000 large farms
This plan also means that a lot of farms will need permits from EPA to stay in business. According to the Department of Agriculture:
According to the Department of Agriculture the following will need permits:
* Dairy facilities with over 25 cows
* Beef operations with over 50 cattle
* Swine operations with more than 200 hogs
* Farms with more than 500 acres of corn
This is just a taste of how far reaching this plan is
EPA is also faced with the broader ramifications of any regulation of motor vehicle GHG emissions under the CAA in response to the Supreme Courts decision. Over the past several months, EPA has received seven petitions from states, localities, and environmental groups to set emission standards under Title II of Act for other types of mobile sources, including nonroad vehicles such as construction and farm equipment, ships and aircraft. The Agency has also received public comments seeking the addition of GHGs to the pollutants covered by the new source performance standard (NSPS) for several industrial sectors under section 111 of the CAA. In addition, legal challenges have been brought seeking controls for GHG emissions in preconstruction permits for several coal-fired power plants.Over the last few months, at least three new coal plants have been halted already by federal courts due to legal challenges over carbon emissions. Obama's action would give every single environmental extremist in the country very powerful legal standing to block most non-nuclear projects, excepting wind and solar. Many of the big solar plants proposed are already being blocked by the EPA because of the extremely high land usage they would require. Nor do we even have the transmission lines in place to cycle the energy around the country, or the storage facilities to balance out the load. If you try wind, the picture is even worse.
It is entirely unclear at this point what sort of MACT standard would be placed on which sources for purposes of controlling GHG emissions, what such controls would cost, and whether such controls would be effective. However, complying with MACT standards with respect to GHG emission controls likely would place a significant burden on States and localities, manufacturing and industrial facilities, businesses, power plants, and potentially thousands of other sources throughout the United States. As the draft explains, section 112 appears to allow EPA little flexibility regarding either the source categories to be regulated or the size of sources to regulate . EPA would be required to regulate a very large number of new and existing stationary sources, including smaller sources we believe that small commercial or institutional establishments and facilities with natural gas fired furnaces would exceed this major source threshold; indeed, a large single family residence could exceed this threshold if all appliances consumed natural gas.In order to escape the permitting process (and the EPA could not process these permits - it would require more than doubling or tripling the staff), businesses and some homes would be forced to turn to electricity.
Compliance with the standards under section 112 is required to be immediate for most new sources and within 3-4 years for existing sources. Such a strict timeline would leave little to no time for emission capture and reduction technologies to emerge, develop, and become cost-effective.