Share

EPA to Declare CO2 a Dangerous Pollutant

by: Jennifer A. Dlouhy  |  The San Francisco Chronicle

photo
The EPA will soon declare carbon dioxide a dangerous pollutant. (Photo: Senor Codo / Flickr)

    Washington - Carbon dioxide will soon be declared a dangerous pollutant - a move that could help propel slow-moving climate-change legislation on Capitol Hill, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency said Monday.

    EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told reporters that a formal "endangerment finding," which would trigger federal regulations on greenhouse gas emissions, probably would "happen in the next months."

    Jackson announced her timeline even as top senators said they were delaying plans to introduce legislation that would set new limits on carbon dioxide emissions. Senators had been scheduled to unveil legislation next Tuesday, but the date has now been pushed back to later in September.

    The House narrowly passed a broad energy and climate-change bill in June, but supporters have moved more slowly in the Senate, where the issue has been trumped recently by work on the health care overhaul.

    The EPA kick-started the regulatory process in April when it proposed declaring carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases as pollutants that jeopardize the public health and welfare. EPA scientists believe the greenhouse gases contribute to global warming by trapping heat in the Earth's atmosphere.

    The EPA can formalize the finding anytime, now that it has closed a 60-day public comment period that netted more than 300,000 responses.

    A formal endangerment finding would obligate the agency to regulate greenhouse gas pollution under the Clean Air Act - even if Congress doesn't pass a final climate-change bill.

    President Obama and Jackson have said they would prefer that Congress - rather than the EPA - take the lead in implementing new greenhouse gas limits. Businesses and energy industry leaders also have largely favored congressional action over EPA-imposed limits, because they believe lawmakers are better positioned to combine economic safeguards with any new carbon cap.

    "Legislation is so important, because it will combine the most efficient, most economy-wide, least costly (and) least disruptive way to deal with carbon dioxide pollution," Jackson said. "We get further faster without top-down regulation."

    But Jackson insisted the EPA would continue on a path that began when the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that greenhouse gases qualified as pollutants and could be regulated if the government determined they threatened the public.

    "Two years is a long time for this country to wait for us to respond to the Supreme Court's ruling," Jackson said.

    Supporters of climate change legislation are hoping the threat of EPA-mandated limits will spur congressional action.

    Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and John Kerry, D-Mass., had been planning to introduce their own climate change bill next week. But in a joint statement Monday, the pair said they were delaying the bill introduction until "later in September" because of the death of Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., Kerry's hip surgery in August, and Kerry's membership on the Finance Committee, which is negotiating health care.

    Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, the top Republican on Boxer's Environment and Public Works Committee, said the delay "is emblematic of the division and disarray in the Democratic Party over cap-and-trade and health care legislation."

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

Okay, everybody stop

Okay, everybody stop breathing. Plants - you're going to have to find something else to breathe and convert into oxygen.

Ideally EPA would mirror

Ideally EPA would mirror Chris Van Hollen's 20-page "Cap and Dividend" bill now before the Houses Ways and Means Committee. This twenty (not 200 or 1400) page bill would: a: place a cap on U.S. fossil CO2 emissions, b: sell all pollution permits at auction, c: return all auction revenue to consumers as an equal per capita rebate, and d: impose a tariff on carbon intensive imports to prevent dirty industry migrating off-shore. That is all we need. Simple, really!

Let's outlaw soft drinks

Let's outlaw soft drinks that are carbonated. Let's all ride horses, wait a minute, can't do that they generate methane, which is a worse greenhouse gas. We must hurry to get this legislation passed before even more people look at the NOAA data or the NASA data both of which have been reporting that the earth has been cooling for the past three years; or God Forbid, they do a search under GLOBAL COOLING and find out how the ice caps have been growing for the past two winters.

I can see it now. Some in

I can see it now. Some in authority have given up - temporarily - selling us the air we breathe and, for now, settle on taxing us on the CO2 we exhale. Don't pay the tax, go to jail. Is this a great country or what?

What a liberal crock.

What a liberal crock. Another liberal push for government control of us. The liberals continue to propagate the Al Gore CO2 fraud. It has been proven a fraud by the overwhelming majority of environmental scientists (over a 10:1 ratio). Now even the department administrators under Obama think that they can make law. We need to implement the plan outlined in Tom Clancy's "Executive Orders" and keep politicians out of politics.

Seriously? Stop blaming

Seriously? Stop blaming EVERYTHING on liberals! The Republicans are the ones who initiated the fall of the econonmy, who contributed massively to Global Warming, and who are responsible for the war! Take your blame, stop shifting it around.

Stop blaming the liberals.

Stop blaming the liberals. Conservatives are responsible for the war, the economy, and contributed a good share to Global Warming. As quote Seth Myers of SNL's Weekend Update: "People are criticizing President Obama, but keep in mind, the last guy broke THE WORLD."

I don't care if it's the EPA

I don't care if it's the EPA or Congress that does it, but it is imperative that we not let warming get so high that feedback takes it completely out of control. That will cause mass extinction, and at the very least the collapse of the economy, probably of civilization, and possibly the human species itself will cease to exist. The best guess from the IPCC is a 20-45% reduction by 2020, and at least an 85% reduction by 2050. That probably is too low because the past few years have been significantly worse than the IPCC's worst scenario, and what we need to aim for is the lower end of the best scenario (no more than 2 degrees C over preindustrial levels). If our government does less than that, it will be ignoring the best science. If we mess this up, we don't get a second chance, so it's utterly stupid to reduce emissions less than 40% by 2020.