EPA Decides to Regulate Greenhouse Gases - Yawn

Is it a big deal that EPA has decided to regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs)? Yes. Is it an unexpected, momentous decision that will have immediate ramifications for West Virginians? Not likely.

The endangerment finding, made under section 202(c) of the Clean Air Act, was a foregone conclusion after the Supreme Court's decision Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), which ordered EPA to determine whether GHGs should be regulated as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act, and the election of President Obama. For better or worse, the fear of global warming is the central concern of environmentalists, and they have been seeking a way to force EPA to address it. The Supreme Court's decision, while directed to a reluctant Bush Administration, has now been implemented by an eager Obama Administration, which found itself in the position of being ordered to do the very thing it wanted most to do. Like ordering a teenager to decide whether homework and curfews are Bad Things and should be prohibited.

But having made the endangerment decision, the long hard road of actually deciding what to do about it sets in. There will be hearings, proposals with public comment periods, and lawsuits, and the whole thing will start over if, as expected, Congress changes the Clean Air Act to put new guidelines on how GHGs can be regulated. People will come out of the woodwork explaining that there are real costs that will arise from CO2 reductions, including higher costs for cars with lower emissions and higher mileage, and likely carbon taxes, as well as possible electrical power cost increases. These aren't necessarily bad things - they could lead to greater efficiencies in power production and usage, and a reduction in pollution. Those are good goals, and worth pursuing. What I object to are the suggestions that we can painlessly accomplish GHG reduction goals, much as conservatives for years blithely stated we could reduce welfare costs by simply eliminating "fraud and abuse." In both cases, it's shameless pandering to a political base that chooses to remain ignorant of the facts.

You can find a good report on EPA's decision to regulate carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride as GHGs in the Wall Street Journal.

Here's the finding that EPA made. You can access it by clicking on the EPA link above.

The Administrator signed a proposal with two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act:

The Administrator is proposing to find that the current and projected concentrations of the mix of six key greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)—in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. This is referred to as the endangerment finding.

The Administrator is further proposing to find that the combined emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O, and HFCs from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines contribute to the atmospheric concentrations of these key greenhouse gases and hence to the threat of climate change. This is referred to as the cause or contribute finding.

Today’s proposed action, as well as any final action in the future, would not itself impose any requirements on industry or other entities.





By the way, this is different than the announcement by the Obama Administration that it will also decide whether to regulate CO2 as a pollutant under the Clean Water Act, on the ground that it is contributing to acidification of the oceans. Here's a short blog on that score