http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-epa-emissions-20101224,0,4110504.story
"The EPA announced a timetable Thursday to curtail greenhouse gas emissions from two major sources of the pollution scientists link to global warming: power plants and oil refineries.
The announcement was the latest step in an ambitious effort to begin taking action on climate change, and it is certain to draw fire from congressional Republicans and industry leaders who have promised to halt the agency's efforts.
The new move toward far reaching emissions rules comes as environmentalists had begun to worry that the Obama administration was easing its push in order to avoid confrontations with major industries in advance of the 2012 presidential campaign.
Unlike regulations coming out Jan. 2 that address pollution only from new facilities or expansions, the schedule announced Thursday would eventually compel industry to reduce emissions across the board, including older sites. Power plants and oil refineries account for alomst 40% of the country's greenhouse gas emissions.
Under the new plan, the EPA would issue proposed standards for power plants in July, go through a public comment and revision period, and announce final standards in May 2012. For the nation's refineries, proposed standards would come out next December and final standards in November 2012.
In a telephone news conference, Gina McCarthy, EPA assistant administrator for air and radiation, said she did not know what the standards would utlimately require, or how much the country's greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced.
McCarthy said that by 2016 at the latest, power plants and refineries would probably by bringing on line the technology they need to meet greenhouse gas emission targets.
"What we are announcing today is the beginning of a process that will decrease greenhouse gas emissions in the US, while providing certainty to industry," McCarthy said.
Industry, at least in the form of Washington lobbyists and trade groups, vehemently disagreed with the agency's prognosis. They asserted that, EPA's claims notwithstanding, there was no off-the-shelf technology they could use to reduce the output of greenhouse gases, especially from coal-fired plants.
"Regulations can't create technology that does not exist or change the laws of physics and economics, so the only way to comply with EPA's proposals would be to inflict massive increases in energy costs and massive increases in unemployment on families across our nation," said Charles T. Drevna, president of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Assn.
"We will urge Congress to vote to stop EPA from implementing these greenhouse gas regulations," he said in an e-mailed statement.
The Energy Department is heavily funding research into carbon capture and sequestration technologies that could be used by big polluters, but utility industry representatives said they are not yet commercially viable.
"We have heard the same complaints for years from them," said David Doniger, policy director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate center. "You used to hear it from the auto industry -- there is nothing we can do that we have not already done."
After years of fighting better fuel efficiency standards, the auto industry, thanks to a series of lawsuits, now backs EPA's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles through higher gas mileage from new cars.
The EPA's timetables for refineries and power plants are the result of its decision to settle two lawsuits brought against the agency during the George W. Bush administration by a coalition of environmental groups and states, including New York and California, that demanded regulation of carbon emissions from those industries.
To critics, the new schedules are emblematic of regulatory overreaching by the Obama administration.
"Today's announcement marks a crescendo in the EPA's long regulatory assault against America's energy producers," said Rep Fred Upton, the incoming chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. "The EPA has its foot firmly on the throat of our economic recovery. We will not allow the administration to regulate what they have been unable to legislate."
Originally posted by whodeyIts this very stance of retrograde backwards thinking that nearly wiped out the US auto industry. If it were not for government handouts the US car industry would be long dead. Innovation enhances economic activity. IF regulation is the only stimulus that will force industry to capitulate and start being innovative instead of preserving a death grip on a profitable status quo, then maybe everyone finally benefits. Who benefits from a stagnant industry anyway?
To critics, the new schedules are emblematic of regulatory overreaching by the Obama administration.
"Today's announcement marks a crescendo in the EPA's long regulatory assault against America's energy producers," said Rep Fred Upton, the incoming chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. "The EPA has its foot firmly on the throat of our econo ...[text shortened]... e will not allow the administration to regulate what they have been unable to legislate."
Originally posted by kmax87How soon the lessons of Soviet Russia are forgotten, innovation at the point of a gun.
Its this very stance of retrograde backwards thinking that nearly wiped out the US auto industry. If it were not for government handouts the US car industry would be long dead. Innovation enhances economic activity. IF regulation is the only stimulus that will force industry to capitulate and start being innovative instead of preserving a death grip on a prof ...[text shortened]... status quo, then maybe everyone finally benefits. Who benefits from a stagnant industry anyway?
Originally posted by kmax87Profit is the difference between what something costs to produce and what it's value is, big profits mean you've produced big value and it takes people to assign values.
how many gfc's before the lessons of the degenerative malaise that is profits before people are learnt?
Originally posted by WajomaIf you don't have to pay all the costs your activity imposes on society, it's much easier to make large profits. Here certain industries are inflicting damage on the environment to the detriment of all but escaping from having to pay their share of the damage. This is called an "externality" and it is a market failure that has to be addressed by government action if it is to be addressed at all.
Profit is the difference between what something costs to produce and what it's value is, big profits mean you've produced big value and it takes people to assign values.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou have yet to come up with some concise figures on CO2 guy, so these "externalities" need to be quantified accurately not some BS out of the East Anglia Institue or rapidly fluctuating IPCC claims.
If you don't have to pay all the costs your activity imposes on society, it's much easier to make large profits. Here certain industries are inflicting damage on the environment to the detriment of all but escaping from having to pay their share of the damage. This is called an "externality" and it is a market failure that has to be addressed by government action if it is to be addressed at all.
Originally posted by WajomaIt's the EPA's job to determine what level of emissions are acceptable; the industries concerned will get their chance to produce whatever evidence they desire in the "public comment" period.
You have yet to come up with some concise figures on CO2 guy, so these "externalities" need to be quantified accurately not some BS out of the East Anglia Institue or rapidly fluctuating IPCC claims.
Polls show large majorities in the US support the regulating and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions; so people have set the values and the value of continued high level of greenhouse gas emission is very low.
Originally posted by no1marauderSo the science is down the drain and you're appealing to millions of non-scientists now.
It's the EPA's job to determine what level of emissions are acceptable; the industries concerned will get their chance to produce whatever evidence they desire in the "public comment" period.
Polls show large majorities in the US support the regulating and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions; so people have set the values and the value of continued high level of greenhouse gas emission is very low.
Originally posted by WajomaLMAO! Are you trying to be ironic? You know as well as I do that the overwhelming scientific consensus is that greenhouse gas emissions at the current levels are undesirable.
So the science is down the drain and you're appealing to millions of non-scientists now.
And whatever happened to your "people assign values" mantra?
Assuming that these emissions need to be regulated (and I'm inclined to think that they do), cap and trade is an excellent way to do that. I'm curious to see how the initial permits will be allocated. It would be best if they were auctioned. The revenue could be used to alleviate the income effects to the poor, if so desired.
Originally posted by telerionContrary to whodey's misleading headline, I don't see anything in the article which suggests a "cap and trade" system will be adopted. It only refers to emission standards for power plants and other facilities.
Assuming that these emissions need to be regulated (and I'm inclined to think that they do), cap and trade is an excellent way to do that. I'm curious to see how the initial permits will be allocated. It would be best if they were auctioned. The revenue could be used to alleviate the income effects to the poor, if so desired.
Originally posted by no1marauderIts a pity if they don't adopt a cap and trade. The incentive to profit from the surplus credits in your cap might just be the win win that will drive businesses to lift their emissions game.
Contrary to whodey's misleading headline, I don't see anything in the article which suggests a "cap and trade" system will be adopted. It only refers to emission standards for power plants and other facilities.
It seems as ever we need carrot and stick to make a difference.
Originally posted by no1marauderNope, 'undesirable' is not a quantity, so we need the temp difference (if any), what it was caused by (i.e. what is mans contribution) then once we have that we need to know how much of a differeence the EPAs latest wet dream will make (temp difference) then we can do a cost/benefit on cap and trade, or carrot and stick as kmax more correctly puts it, with the emphasis on 'stick'.
LMAO! Are you trying to be ironic? You know as well as I do that the overwhelming scientific consensus is that greenhouse gas emissions at the current levels are undesirable.
And whatever happened to your "people assign values" mantra?
What defines irony is you trying to reconcile this:
"Polls show large majorities in the US support the regulating and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions; so people have set the values and the value of continued high level of greenhouse gas emission is very low.
with this:
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?subject=Creationist_Gallup_Poll&threadid=136479