Skip to comments.E.P.A. Moves to Curtail Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Posted on 09/30/2009 2:50:59 PM PDT by reaganaut1
The Environmental Protection Agency announced a proposed rule Wednesday to begin regulating greenhouse gas emissions from thousands of power plants and large industrial facilities.
The proposed rule would require polluters to install the best available technology to capture greenhouse gases whenever a new plant is opened or significantly changed. The rule applies to any industrial plant that emits at least 25,000 tons of greenhouse gases a year.
When the rule is final, the EPA said operators of as many 14,000 sources of pollution would have to get additional permits.
The proposal, long anticipated and highly controversial, marks the first government move toward controlling the emissions blamed for the warming of the planet from stationary sources. The E.P.A. has already proposed an ambitious program to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, expected to take effect early next year.
Lisa P. Jackson, the E.P.A. administrator, announced the proposal on the same day that Senators John F. Kerry and Barbara Boxer introduced sweeping climate change and energy legislation. While that bill faces a highly uncertain fate in the Senate, the Obama administration signaled its intention to move forward on global warming with or without a Congressional mandate.
Ms. Jackson, citing her authority under the Clean Air Act, said the new rule would apply only to facilities emitting 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year or more. That would exempt virtually all small businesses and farms and cover only the largest power plants, refineries and large-scale factories.
By using the power and authority of the Clean Air Act, Ms. Jackson said in a statement Wednesday afternoon, we can begin reducing emissions from the nations largest greenhouse gas emitting facilities without placing an undue burden on the businesses that make up the vast majority of our economy.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
global warming ping
Brilliant move, E.P.A.
These people won’t be happy until we’re all riding bicycles.
Don’t sweat it. Just vote out the EPA bureaucrats in the next election.
Frankly, we get what we deserve. We put up with anything in this country.
I often see posts saying “Close the EPA.” Well, what exactly does it take to close an agency? A bill? A Presidential order? How hard would it really be?
Agency regulations, unlike laws passed by Congrees, can be challenged on their merits. If it can be proven in court that AGW is not scientifically well-founded, the regulations can be overturned.
Hey, congress, if we’re going to be ruled by czars and bureaucrats what do we need you for?
Maybe we need to do some investigation into MS. Jackson’s backgound?
The list, ping
Yet each year Florida’s big sugar will BURN their entire fields to yield an easier harvest polluting Florida’s air land and sea.
Course big money interests, the Fanjul family who donates to BOTH parties will be ignored by E.P.A.?
Cap n' Trade would help offset these regulations which, if law holds up, will be brought down to 250 TONS at each facility. It's called the Prevention of Significant Deterioration(PSD) permits. It's a nasty nasty little piece of regulation.
This is open warfare on the free enterprise system, as far as I am concerned.
The left really needs to get some push-back on green issues.
The EPA is incapable of anything and should have been disbanded before it was even created.
It is one of the most corrupt agencies in the federal government and has been since its inception.
Article 1 Section 1 of our once Constitution granted legislative power to Congress, not to pencil-neck enviro nut jobs. It certainly did not grant them taxing power either.
It is time for pitchforks.
These 14,000 factories will either shut down and move overseas or they will split into smaller factories under the 25,000 ton limit.
We're all polluters now...
Did the Supreme Court make a determination that they “should” treat CO2 as a pollutant or that they “could” treat CO2 as a pollutant. My belief is that the Supreme Court ruled that the determination was left up to the E.P.A. as to the definition of “pollutant”. If this had not been the case, then a court would have had to hold hearings where experts would have testified. I do not believe this happened.