Three cheers for lawsuits...
The city of Baltimore (Get in on it!) is joining a bunch of states and assorted rabble rousers in a lawsuit aimed at forcing the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, those pesky people-produced chemicals that are fueling large changes in the composition our atmosphere. From the Sun:
The city, which hasn't had a case before the nation's highest court in decades, is arguing that at least 860 buildings near the Inner Harbor could suffer $420 million in flood damage if the federal government doesn't act on its legal obligation to slow global warming and sea-level rise, according to papers filed with the court.(Phelan, huh? That name sounds familiar. Oh yeah.)
New York City and the District of Columbia also have joined Massachusetts, California and other states in suing the Bush administration for refusing to regulate carbon dioxide and other global warming gases from vehicles under the Clean Air Act. That law, last revised in 1990, says the EPA shall set standards for emissions that "cause or contribute to air pollution which may be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare," including through climate or weather.
The arguments in Massachusetts v. EPA are scheduled for 10 a.m. tomorrow, although a decision is not expected until after February. A win by Baltimore and the other plaintiffs could empower federal and state governments to take action on what some have called the most important environmental issue of our time, while a loss could inhibit efforts to reduce global warming.
"Congress has already acted - and they've given the EPA the clear mandate to regulate air pollutants," said Bill Phelan, principal counsel for the Baltimore city solicitor's office. "And all of the greenhouse gases being considered - carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide - are all things that easily fall within the definition of air pollutants."
In case you're wondering, I support the lawsuit and, by extension, the regulation of greenhouse gases. But then, I tend to think that byproducts of fossil fuel burning that alter our atmosphere with potentially catastrophic consequences should be classified as pollutants, not "Life" or some other inappropriate euphemism. And I'm continually amazed at things like this:
The Bush administration argues in its brief to the Supreme Court that carbon dioxide isn't really a pollutant, but instead a normal and inevitable product of burning oil and coal. The only way to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles is to improve their fuel economy, and these standards are set by the Department of Transportation, not the EPA, the administration argues.Sulfer dioxide is a normal and inevitable product of burning oil and coal. So are mercury and nitrogen oxides. Yet, all of these are regulated as pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
Am I missing something?
4 comments:
Yes, you are missing something, as usual. Have you looked at how much pollutant material is emitted into the atmosphere each year due to volcanic eruption and activity? How about co2 attributable to forest fires and wildfires, like those each year in the midwest?
Character attacks, strawman arguments and factual errors all in first paragraph. Great start!
Anyway, you've failed to address the actual point of the post, which is: should CO2 should be treated as a "pollutant" under the existing Clean Air Act, which was last amended in 1990 (and not by the Bush Administration)? Bush has proposed changes to the New Source Review program, which is a part of the CAA but is not really relevant to what I was discussing here.
Also, I'm an enviro whacko who supports nuclear energy, but that, too, is beside the point.
Thankfully, neither you nor I will decide the answer to the question of CO2's status. The Supreme Court will. Unfortunately, I'm afraid, they're about as qualified to rule on this matter as either of us.
Your concerns about losing jobs versus protecting the environment are valid, if based on poor assumptions. For all the hooting and hollering about the 1990 amendments to the CAA -- those which largely eliminated Acid Rain as a concern, thanks to a cap and trade permitting process -- the impact on the economy was nill. This is usually the case with new environmental regulations.
The economy and environmnent are both dynamic and adaptable systems.
The precautionary principle is widely used as a rationale for our international policies, yet when it comes to matters of the environment our standard for action seems considerably higher, even if the risks of actual harm are the same. But we're horrible -- as a species -- at assessing risk (see nuclear power).
Regarding the volcanic eruptions and forest fires. These things have been occuring for many thousands of years. Yet, from the end of the last ice age -- about 10,000 years ago -- until the industrial revolution, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was relatively stable, suggesting that emmissions from volcanoes and forest fires we're balanced by carbon sequestration elsewhere (trees and oceans, mainly). It wasn't until humans started burning fossil fuels that we saw a dramatic and unprecedented rise in CO2 concentrations. See here .
Tom,
Solar energy not reliable? Last time I checked, the sun comes up every day and, reading the almanac, it looks like it will keep doing so for a while.
Solar energy costly? It runs about 10-14 cents/kW now. Check your electric bill (which also includes a distribution cost/kW) and see how that compares.
Keep in mind the CAA grandfathered in old plants permitting them to delay full compliance with EPA standards, but required new plants to immediately fully meet EPA standards. CAA required, when old plants wanted to increase capacity that they, too, like new plants, would be then required to meet current standards.
Relaxing CAA could be construed to have subsidized expansion of these higher-pollutant-emitting existing generators, while those companies wanting to build clean new plants still had to meet EPA standards.
Those enviro whackos are against what?
Want to protect jobs relative to global warming? Great.
The times, they are a-changin'.
"whackos" and "extremists on the other side of the debate"?
The sun indeed does not shine everyday. Nor does it shine at night. Ever heard of batteries and other power storage systems such as flywheels? Businesses are buying flywheels to store off-peak consumed power for use at on-peak times.
ROI time on solar systems continues to drop. Fossil fuel costs have risen drastically and will continue to do so. Whacko might be ignoring that's the case.
http://www.housingzone.com/probuilder/article/CA6340267.html sheds a little more, shall we say, light.
If jobs are lost, don't blame the regs. Blame the globalization landscape that allows offshoring manufacturing to countries that ignore environmental pollution (to the world's detriment) and allows those goods to be imported without ample tariffs to countries having adequate regs.
I look forward to that magazine article and I'd answer your assertions more thoroughly, Tom, but my legs are tired from pedaling this generator so I can stay onli
Post a Comment