The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today confirmed that six greenhouse gases definitely pose a serious threat to public health and the welfare of the American people, and are subject to federal regulation under the Clean Air Act. The agency also concluded that greenhouse gas emissions from on-road vehicles are contributing to the threat.
The EPA's final endangerment finding--a direct response to the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act--is based on a comprehensive review of decades of scientific evidence and more than 380,000 public comments collected during the 60-day comment period that began in April when the agency issued its proposed finding.
In making the announcement, the EPA also issued a strong statement about greenhouse gases as the primary cause of climate change and their role as a contributing factor in hotter, longer heat waves and higher concentrations of ground-level ozone that lead to increases in respiratory illnesses and other health problems.
Coming on the first day of the U.N.-sponsored climate summit in Copenhagen, the EPA endangerment finding reinforced the Obama administration's intent to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and crack down on polluters. While Congress continues to debate legislation that would set enforceable targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, today's announcement clears the way for the EPA to regulate six key greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride.
"As the major global warming summit begins this week in Copenhagen, this announcement couldn't come at a more important time," said Carl Pope, Sierra Club executive director. "The Obama administration has followed through on its pledge to act and is demonstrating that the U.S. has turned away from eight years of inaction under the Bush administration.
"President Obama sees the Big Picture--by shifting to clean energy, and cracking down on the corporations that pollute the water we drink and the air we breathe, we can restore our economy to prosperity and reduce our dependence on oil and coal, all while tackling global warming," Pope said.
The EPA's endangerment finding has been a long time coming. The following timeline shows some of the key events leading up to today's decision:
- 1970: The Clean Air Act is passed by Congress and signed into law by President Richard Nixon.
- 1999: The EPA is first petitioned to regulate global warming pollutants from new cars and light trucks under the Clean Air Act.
- 2003: The EPA under President George W. Bush denies the petition.
- April 2007: The Supreme Court finds, in Massachusetts v. EPA, that greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act, and rules that the EPA must determine whether these pollutants from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.
- December 2007: The Bush EPA prepares a proposed finding that global warming pollutants endanger public welfare, but the White House refuses to allow the proposal to be released.
- April 2009: The Obama EPA releases its proposed finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare.
- December 2009: The Obama EPA issues its final endangerment finding, confirming that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare, and are subject to federal regulation under the Clean Air Act.
Comments
Dec, 7, 2009– A day that shall live in infamy…
Now they can legally regulate how much we breathe.
Now they are going to tax the air we breath.
We all agree that not enough has been and is being done, but it appears that some people have such fun wallowing in negativity instead of welcoming a potentially fantastic source of control on emissions by the U.S…..like you two above!
Larry: You are a committed and informed guide to environment. But I should like to suggest three things that would enhance the value of your blog, and attract knowledgeable and thoughtful commentors.
1) Explore and present informed views and information by foreign experts like Yvo de Boer, the Dutch Secretary of the UN Forum for Climate Change, whom I heard in a stunning interview yesterday.
2) Pay more attention to readers and reader comments,
3) Don’t ignore or dismiss questioners or skeptics.
Hearing DeBoer on the outstanding Al Jazeera show yesterday was a revelation. (we get it on ordinary channels here in the Washington D.C. area, but one can always find the English-language version on the internet). Unlike what people may assume, the English language Al Jazeera has little Islamic or other scernable bias. It is extraordinarily even-handed, sophisticated in its treatment, and comes up with much solid Information not available even in the former PBS News Hour with Jim Lehrer, or the best commercial TV news sources.
Hearing DeBoer’s open-minded, factual approach to current Copenhagen climate change policy discussions in comparison with U.S. coverage was like moving to the convalescent ward of a hospital from the intensive care unit. For example when asked about the emails that showed bias and manipulative efforts by high-ranking Intergovernmental Panel on Global Climate Change officials (IGPCC)
DeBoer made no effort to duck or downplay the scandal. He said that the behavior was damaging, should be fully investigated and the results disseminated. On the other hand, he strongly also stated that the problem was foolish behavior by individuals – and did not affect the data and results of the IGPCC report. That, he pointed out, was compiled through the effort of some 2000 international science analysts, subjected to multiple rigorous evaluations, and finally signed off on by 100 heads of state. He flatly stated that the report was the most authoritative available. Every question was answered succinctly and candidly.
\
The fact that DeBoer would have an influential role in the current Copenhagen policy discussions gave me an entirely new perspective on it. He’s something like a leader with the knowledgeability and articulateness of Obama, the rectitude and directness of General Jones (foreign affairs advisory) and Gen. McChrystal who impresses virtually all. I think it suggests that, notwithstanding the skeptics, the Copenhagen conference will take up and affirm strong (but realistic) positions, and drag undecideds into common agreement. \
I haven’t seen you pay much attention to readers and audience. I propose that if you give more attention to people with thoughtful ideas and solid information, or meaningful questions (no matter whether politically correct or not) than those just venting (though not ignoring the latter) you’ll bring in many more serious commentors and in general, people who want light, not just heat.
Finally, one of the results of “climategate” affair is that there is recognition that past tendencies for environmental activists to ignore questioners, critics, and unfavorable information items or questions, have been counterproductive. We have had enough experience to conclude that passionate engagement, hostilities, demonizing opponents and nonconformists gives the whole issue of environmental policy – critical as it is – the image of ideological crusade.
People who don’t have special background on the issues nevertheless know from long experience that people with demonstrated emotional engagement are likely to have bias. This helps explain the unexpectedly high level of skepticism in the U.S. public compared with nearly all other advanced nations.
I am thrilled to see that President Obama is doing the right thing by addressing carbon emissions. Despite what the dummies might say about climate change being a left wing conspiracy or what-have-you, there are decades of sound science in support of human induced warming. If we can turn our act around and clean up our energy sources the future generations will be grateful that 1) we didn’t stick them with the problems we created, and 2) be thankful that this current generation could see past its own selfish aims and work to leave the environment better than we found it.
It’s time for take responsibility for our actions folks, like it or not.
Frank: a well written, thoughtful comment, but why would you give any credibility to a politician’s thoughts on a matter of science?
Perhaps this article will give you a different appreciation of the problem exposed by the leak of info from CRU: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/#more-13818
The UN’s position on GW is attributed exclusively to the work of these several people who deliberately fudged data to get the desired result, destroyed data, and have refused to provide the data, deliberately refusing to comply with freedom of info laws. They conspired to infiltrate &/or otherwise influence editorial staffs of the main scientific journals, effectively preventing dissenting papers from being published.
Without their computer generated artwork, it is obvious that the warming seen since the Little Ice Age is neither extreme nor unprecedented, the tenent of the IPCC report and the excuse needed to insist on a remedy.
Primum non nocere.
Why trust a politician?
Yvo de Boer is a politician, it’s true. However there are two reasons why I don’t hold that against him as it might be reasonable to do were he a U.S. politician.
No. 1, environmental policy in Europe isn’t an area of intense, partisan political conflict as it is in the U.S. Moreover, ministries are generally expected to perform in a nonpartisan, professional manner. This is especially true for densely populated Holland, partly reclaimed from the North Sea. It remains at constant risk and is also dependent for its economic livelihood on state of the art harbors like Rotterdam.The nation’s existence depends on reliable performance.
2) Before he became Secretary for UNFCC, de Boer was Director for International Affairs of the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment of the Netherlands. He also served as Deputy Director-General for Environmental Protection in the same Ministry, Head of the Climate Change Department and was involved in climate change policies since 1994, including helping prepare EU positions prior to negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol
I’m sure that de Boer has done any necessary homework to get himself up to speed on the scientific detail.
However, I do plan to get to the bottom of all the claims and counterclaims, because I want to check it out for myself (I have an oceanography-earth science professional background).
Thanks for stimulating this discussion.
Gene, maybe you have money to throw away but I don’t. If they threw away the data that they base their conclusions on, how can anyone check the info?
While Europeans have proven themselves to be a little better at maintaining a stable environment lately (having previously decimated it) and population than Americans, they are also more accustomed to living in a paternalistic govt atmosphere, having been subjugated by Emperors, kings and dictators since the days of the Caesars. As a regular reader of European newspapaers, I can assure you they are still subject to petty politics now among their elected officials. This presentation may give you insight into the editorial and political process involved in producing the IPCC report, and more importantly, its Summary: http://www.co2science.org/video/cop/cop15/ipcc.php#process
-As a scientist, you are surely aware of the politics & jelousies involved in research & publications. Have yopu noticed how summaries/conclusions on published papers often are not supported by the data presented within the body of the paper?
-Also note that the Kyoto Agreement was a dismal failure, CO2 goals having been reached by only two of the signatories.