Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 12/17/2009 7:49:08 PM PST by neverdem
The Obama administration’s EPA ruling is an attempt to force Congress’s hand.
Typically, when a law is passed or a regulation proposed, its champions believe that the action will be beneficial to society. But that’s not the case when it comes to steps that the Obama administration took last week, when Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson issued an “endangerment” finding that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide are harmful pollutants and therefore subject to EPA regulation under the Clean Air Act. Jackson issued the finding largely because the Obama team believes—or at least thinks that Congress believes—that EPA regulation of CO2 would be devastating to the economy.
The endangerment finding was designed to strike fear into the hearts of those worried about the economic harm of severe government action. The aim is to terrify industry and move public opinion to such a degree that Congress feels compelled to pass cap-and-trade legislation—no matter how economically harmful it would be—in order to pre-empt a much worse, EPA-imposed regulatory regime. It is, essentially, environmental blackmail.
Up to this point, Congress has seemed unwilling to pass global warming legislation, largely because of the perceived economic damage that would ensue. A 2007 MIT study suggested that cap-and-trade would cost the average American family $3,900 each year in economic losses and taxes. A more recent Heritage Foundation study reached a similar conclusion. Even candidate Obama said, “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” What Obama is saying to Congress today is: If you don’t pass cap-and-trade, which I have already acknowledged is costly, I’ve got something coming down the pike that will be even costlier. It’s a very cynical—and very risky—strategy.
United Nations climate chief Yvo de Boer explained the strategy to reporters in Copenhagen: “If I were a businessman, I would say, ‘Please, please, please do a deal in Copenhagen, and please, please, please make it market-based.’ Because if we fail to get a market-based deal here, and if the U.S. Senate fails to pass cap-and-trade legislation, then the EPA will be obliged to regulate. And every businessman knows that taxes and regulations tend to be a lot more expensive and lot less efficient than market-based approaches.”
An unnamed White House official was more explicit, telling Fox News, “If you don’t pass this legislation, then . . . the EPA is going to have to regulate in this area. And it is not going to be able to regulate on a market-based way, so it’s going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty.”
The Clean Air Act would indeed be a bad instrument for regulating greenhouse-gas emissions. The act and its subsequent amendments were designed to apply to pollutants harmful to human health, like nitrogen dioxide, lead, and sulfur dioxide. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant in the traditional sense; indeed, large concentrations are needed to make plants grow and to sustain life on earth. In passing later amendments to the Clean Air Act, Congress discussed but ultimately decided against including greenhouse gases like CO2, largely because of that distinction.
Despite the explicit nature of the act and its amendments, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 in a 2007 case not only that EPA could regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant, but that it had to do so unless it could come up with a scientific rationale for avoiding such action.
Still, that’s a pretty shaky foundation for wholesale federal regulation of CO2, especially when it’s not clear just how far government can go. The Obama administration prefers that Congress set the parameters of CO2 regulation, affording greater legal legitimacy and avoiding the legal challenges that would surely result from EPA action—to say nothing of the economic harm. The administration seems to grasp that, too, but claims its hands are tied. It’s obligated to move forward with CO2 regulations that apply in the same way as rules for other, more legitimate pollutants—unless, of course, Congress acts.
“When we think about the agency’s history, it’s always controlled air pollution—pollution coming out of a tailpipe or a smokestack,” said former EPA general counsel David Martella in an interview with Energy & Environment News. “This decision will give EPA the authority to regulate the energy going in to a process”—a much broader scope.
The new regulations would, in accordance with the Clean Air Act, apply to any entity with annual emissions of 250 tons or more. That’s a reasonable threshold when talking about emissions of particulate matter from a power plant’s smokestacks, but it’s laughably low for CO2. The average American household emits around 10-12 tons of CO2 per year, and an average commercial building or office building is likely to be responsible for more than 250 tons. As one former EPA official told me, “The potential impacts of this are mind-boggling. Any change to your facility, any modification, and virtually all new building construction would be subject to Clean Air Act regulation. We’re not just talking higher energy costs. It will be real economic chaos.”
All year long, Washington observers have expected that Congress would pass cap-and-trade, particularly because of the looming threat that EPA would issue the endangerment finding. But Congress didn’t take the bait. The House of Representatives narrowly passed a bill in June, but during the summer recess members in both houses were excoriated by their constituents over cap-and-trade and health care. The Senate punted, signaling that it won’t even consider a global warming bill in 2009—and 2010 is an election year, making it even less likely that climate-change legislation could win passage from this Congress. The threat implicit in the administration’s CO2 endangerment finding probably won’t change that legislative calculus. Acting to “save” the economy with a measure for which they’ll get flayed by voters is political suicide. Better to let President Obama take the blame for imposing the regulations.
Looking for a political hedge in the event Congress stands pat, the EPA made an important claim in announcing its finding: that the regulations will apply only to facilities with a minimum 25,000 annual tons of CO2, not the Clean Air Act’s stipulated 250 tons. The higher threshold would remove the suffocating blanket of regulation from many smaller enterprises, while keeping it firmly on power plants, refineries, and large manufacturing facilities. Such a threshold would likely prevent a complete economic meltdown, though the regulation would still impose considerably higher costs across the economy. There’s just one problem: the EPA has no legal authority to raise the threshold arbitrarily. If the agency is compelled to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act, as the Supreme Court suggested, then it is obligated to do so under the act’s terms.
Right now, proponents of greenhouse-gas regulation in the Obama administration are walking a fine line. They know that the proposal they prefer, cap-and-trade, will entail some economic drag. They also know that the course to which they presently are committed—EPA regulation under the Clean Air Act—threatens truly grave economic harm. Perhaps Congress will save them and choose the less damaging option, but that’s doubtful. Perhaps the courts will bail them out by allowing EPA’s arbitrary 25,000-ton threshold to apply. That’s doubtful, too.
The likeliest scenario? Chaos, here we come.
Max Schulz is a Manhattan Institute senior fellow.
Just one political assault after another.
As the drip, drip, drip of these news stories continues, I see fewer and fewer Democrats in Congress in 2011. The question is, what will replace them.
Let the EPA try. A good excuse to abolish them when we take over.
Cap & tax is “market based”? They all seem to be using the same phrasebook, straight from George Soros.
What kind of “market” are we talking about here? The Marxist-Leninist market?
That is not likely in my opinion. Congress could however, quickly remove CO2 and GHG's from the EPA's authority under the CAA.
That is a more plausible outcome if the fit hits the shan. Unfortunately, I expect that lititgation on the issue will be the likely route which will give the administration cover to say "we are doing something" and Congress the cover to say "it is working through the system" without pushing either to take responsibility and fix the problems it will cause.
Businesses and the economy are likely to suffer from the regulatory uncertainty, but not as much as regulation by the EPA under the CAA.
I believe EPA is counting on litigation forestall implementation actually. If they weren't - they wouldn't be trying to twist the CAA with their "tailoring rule" which so obviously disregards the specific language in the CAA that it is laughable and I'm not even a lawyer.
Carbon dioxide is the primary component that is the basis of all plant life and without it the entire food chain for all life would end. The Earth has had continuous fluctuations in the levels of CO2 though out its history. We are in a time of plentiful CO2 which is a good thing for plant life and the growing of food.
If the Chicken Littles wanted to do something with CO2, they would use it in the production of Algae Oil, which locks in CO2 for the production of fuel. Any fossil fueled electrical plant could put its CO2 output directly into the production of algae oil.
Sheeee-it! If I were a blue dog dem, I would just say “Go ahead and regulate, you don’t need my vote or anyone else’s”
Why pass a suicidal law when the administration can just impose it by fiat.
In other words, call their bluff.
later
They are intentionally using the (successful) cap and trade approach designed for acid rain as a basis for assuming that cap and tax for CO2 will work the same. They are playing with the facts in a big way...
The first method for reducing SO2 under the CAA acid rain requirements was to switch to lower sulfur western coals. This certainly benefited western coal producers and coal transportation services (rail).
The second method was to install flue gas desulfurization systems. Not cheap technology, but not magical technology either. These have been getting better and better over time, and to the chagron of EPA and environmentalists that just want to kill coal - the result is that the CAA requirements (including acid rain) have made it more feasible to fire higher sulfur eastern coals once again. I'm sure it pisses them off mightely that technology has made it possible to once again the other half of our vast coal reserves, but that's the way the ball bounces.
They are attempting to fight this with EPA/DOJ suits against power plants, but the technology to remove SO2 appears to be winning (though they are getting plenty of pounds of flesh in the process.).
CO2 control is a different beast all together. As with SO2 there are two parts - collection and disposal. Flue gas desulfurization waste can easily be put in a landfill, and where feasible can be used to replace gypsum in the manufacturing of wallboard or even for ag-lime.
With CO2 the issues are different - first the disposal. Even after you capture CO2 disposal is an isssue. Unlike the SO2 which is bound in solid FGD waste it remains a gas making it much harder to safely "put" somewhere. Pumping it into aquifers, or other places underground and under the sea seem to be the best ideas (geological storage). Unfortunately, nobody knows how long it will stay there, who would take responsibility for a CO2 "belch" that suffocates a few thousand people, or whether our ground water will be turned into carbon acid.
This half of the equation - sequestration - is the radical's fall back point for killing coal. Even if technology and economics make carbon capture feasible - they have the nuclear option of attacking sequestration. Don't get me wrong - they are all for spending the money to study this now - but once their other methods for killing the use of coal stop producing results they will switch gears and run with this without hesitation. It's not about the environment - it's about knocking us down a notch or ten and reducing our standard of living.
Carbon capture is the other aspect. Combining the need to selectively grab CO2 gas from a flue gas stream, condense it to make a liquid so that it can effectively be transported from point a to point sequestration, you get a huge energy penalty.
Huge in terms of 10% - 25%, minimum. That means that every coal plant will need to expend 10% - 25% of it's output just to capture CO2 and prepare it for sequestration.
On the very low end - that means that for every 10 plants that do this - another one needs to be built just to maintain the current supply of electricity and associated supply margins.
Cap and trade might be applicable where the technology and feasibilty exists as it did with the acid rain program. For CO2 it is a whole different ballgame...
I thought City Journal above that sort of glaring editorial error, in the subtitle no less.
There is something a LOT more disturbing here. The Administration is making it clear that if the Congress doesn’t give them what they want, they’ll just take it.
It’s not the first thing the Obama cabinent has done. The FCC imposed “Net Neutrality” a few weeks ago going around Congress.
This is one of the scary reasons why the election next fall might not matter: the Administration will just do whatever it wants too anyway regardless of what Congress does.
Ahh, but it isn't a way to kill wood as a source of energy. Just turn it to charcoal and use it as a soil amendment. It is in fact an effective "nutrient sponge" that could reduce fertilizer requirements significantly.
It's high time we found a way to finance restructuring our disastrously overstocked National Forests anyway.
On the bright side - the success of environmental lawsuits has not gone without notice. I believe their tactics and methods have been well studied and evaluated. Raising a toast to lawyers turing the worm and using the enviros tactics against them and EPA.
Grabbing the popcorn for the show - all the while exhaling an EPA designated dangerous pollutant with every breath...
This just in:
The EPA has declared that CO2 has been determined to be so hazardous to people’s health, that an emergency regulation will go into effect starting 12-18-09 until further notice. Science has proven that CO2 causes massive global warming which must stop now in order to save the planet. Since all humans exhale CO2 which is greatly contributing to the problem, this emergency regulation is absolutely necessary to preserve life as we know it.
Therefore, all males are henceforth ordered not to exhale on even numbered days of the month, and all females are henceforth ordered not to exhale on odd numbered days of the month. We know that this will be a difficult change in everyone’s daily habits, but we sincerely hope that we have acted in time to save Planet Earth.
Remember, no sacrifice is too great in order to save the planet and this is such a small inconvenience to anyone that full co-operation will be expected. Penalty for non-compliance will be execution and forfeiture of the decedent’s entire estate.
Due to the complexity of managing this problem and dealing with the ongoing world economic crisis as well as the burdens of government, certain goverment leaders, officials and selected others will be exempt from this regulation.
From the EPA, we hope that all of you have fun on your holidays. We know that WE will, (now).
/satire
Slow down and think about this a bit. If we burned the carbon neutral forests the right wing militias would have nowhere to secretly train.
Jeesh - at a minimu we need to save the tree bark for food when the enviros finally get those evil genetically modified grains banned and we finally have the opportunity to reduce crop yields by 50%.
What were you thinking?
;)
Of course, the 'carbon footprint' caused by construction will be far in excess of anything put out by current operations which use the economy of scale to be more efficient, but the administration, the ecowhackos, and the greenies don't care about that.
The other side of the coin is the 'coin'--the anticipated revenues which can be skimmed, siphoned, and grant-awarded to the FOO (friends of obama).
The looting of America continues...
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.