EPA Determines CO2, Other GHGs Endanger Society

coal_fired_power_plantSome of the biggest news to come out of Copenhagen yesterday was the ruling from the Environmental Protection Agency that greenhouse gas emissions are now considered “an endangerment” to society. This ruling now gives the EPA the authority, under the Clean Air Act, to regulate greenhouse gases. This decision could lead to stricter vehicle, manufacturing and power plant emissions – including ethanol and biodiesel plants.

The timing was no coincidence as President Obama is looking to improve America’s bargaining hand during the two week Climate Change Conference where leaders from nearly 200 countries are attempting to create a global climate policy plan.

On December 7, 2009, the Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act:

  • Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed 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.

  • Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and welfare.

In addition to tightening emission standards, there are two other ways that have been discussed at length to regulate CO2 emissions, the gas that is in the most abundance. First is through a carbon tax and second through a cap and trade system.

0 thoughts on “EPA Determines CO2, Other GHGs Endanger Society




  2. There’s a lot of Hanky Panky going on at the EPA this year. They’ve been accused of being in bed with Big Oil by House Ag Chairman, Congressman Collin Peterson. EPA also got caught censoring Dr. Alin Carlin, their own 25 year Senior Analyst who found scientific evidence that global warming was Not happening. When she testified before a House panel, Margo Oge, the EPA official responsible for regulating the entire U.S. biofuels industry for emissions, didn’t know how many gallons of biofuel you get out of an acre of corn or soybeans, or how much byproduct livestock feed you get. Oge said that it takes 64 acres of corn to make one gallon of ethanol and 400 acres of soybeans for each gallon of biodiesel – which is way off. Yet when it comes to calculating the carbon score of biofuels, those figures are vital.

    EPA also got caught trying to implement an unproven theory based on false assumptions – “indirect land use change” – into Renewable Fuel Standard 2. The EPA allowed the author of “indirect land use change” and his anti-biofuel assistants to peer review their own work. Then EPA issued this fraudulent statement: “We are pleased that this independent peer review has affirmed EPA’s approach to be fair, credible and grounded in science.” In truth, the EPA peer review of the controversial land use theory was Not fair, Not credible, and Not grounded in science. When this was exposed in the press, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson was forced to publically admit, that the proposed rules would have to be redone, due to “serious uncertainties”.

    Now, with these new CO2 regulations, EPA is involved in more obfuscation (deliberate distortion, when they know better). What they are proposing is to regulate RECYCLED Carbon – The same way it regulates NEWLY MINED Carbon brought up from deep underground. Biofuels simply recycle existing CO2 that’s already in the atmosphere. In contrast, when fossil fuels are burned, they cause NEW carbon dioxide to build-up in the atmosphere.

    Likewise, when corn is processed into ethanol (aside from the natural gas that’s used for production power), the CO2 released is what the corn absorbed when it was grown. Compare that with a conventional oil refinery, where all of the CO2 released comes from “newly mined” carbon. There is a world of difference when you compare the environmental impact of “recycled” carbon released by biofuels – with “newly mined” virgin carbon released by fossil fuels. Yet the EPA plans to falsely regulate them the same way, instead of putting recycled and newly mined carbon dioxide in two different categories. This is a subversive attempt to ignore one of the biggest environmental advantages of biofuels over fossil fuels. More EPA junk science.

  3. Let’s get back to the term: Pollution. Eliminate the pollutants, and you will bring the Earth back to its natural state. That should solve global warming or climate change – whatever you want to call it.

    Carbon dioxide is Not a pollutant. That’s where Copenhagen, the EPA, and the Climate alarmists are wrong. The Elite have infiltrated the EPA, in order to classify CO2 as a pollutant – So they can control all industry in the United States, and implement a parallel program for the rest of the world. This is a so called “new world order” global control tactic. It’s also a “foot in the door” to a global carbon tax, which is a stepping stone to a global sales tax, which is a stepping stone to a global income tax. More Government Control of you, your livelihood, and your money. Copenhagen is designed to pull your sovereignty out from under you. Instead of being over-regulated and milked on a national scale, the plan is to also milk you on a global scale, by a small group of Global elite. They will also have a new form of wealth to play with – Carbon Certificates – that they can create out of nothing, trade offshore without oversight, and obfuscate over and over in the electronic realm. If you allow Cap and Trade, it would become the biggest fraudulent scam so far in the History of Man, besides the privately owned Federal Reserve.

    This would also be a new form of tax, manifesting as higher energy and production costs. That translates into higher cost of living for everyone, and domestic industries that can’t compete with countries such as China and India that don’t implement cap and trade. American Manufacturers estimate that 2 million U.S. jobs will be lost to foreign countries because of this.

    The idea that those of us in wealthy countries should pay for developing countries to cap and trade is more nonsense. This is designed to increase our National Debt and the interest we pay on it to the Federal Reserve. This is while we’re shelling out more money for wars, and while we have 10% unemployment and families and children losing their homes. How delusional can Congress and the Administration get?

    Go ahead and regulate the real pollutants, but do it gradually, so as not to shock the system. That will allow the economy to adjust.

    If you remove carbon dioxide from Al Gore’s list, you have a fairly decent ID on the pollutants that we should control: methane, black carbon soot, sulfur hexaflouride, tetrafluoroethane, carbon monoxide, butane and nitrous oxide. What we need is specific legislation to mitigate specific pollutants.

    For example: Ban the burning of garbage dumps, especially in polar regions. Capture methane at sewage disposal plants, landfills, feedlots and dairy farms, etc.. Recycle biomass waste into fuels, energy, and useful products. Mitigate methane being flared or burned at refineries. Develop higher recycling standards that will process waste much more thoroughly than we currently do. Retrofit ocean going ships burning dirty bunker fuel with processors that clean black carbon soot out of the exhaust. And develop clean, next generation ship design with hybrid-electric technology integrated with solar, wind, fuel cells, GEET exhaust reprocessing etc.. Reprocess car and truck exhaust, or retrofit existing tail pipes with filters or exhaust filtration systems. We can also filter fireplace and wood stove exhaust and put next generation exhaust systems on coal burning power plants, which currently only stop half of the acid rain pollutants. Then gradually phase-out coal.

    Third world countries are stripping trees and burning them for cooking and heating. This is a major cause of deforestation, black carbon soot, global warming, respiratory disease and infant mortality. India and Nigeria have programs to distribute localized sweet sorghum and cassava fed ethanol micro refineries, and stoves and lanterns burning a 50-50 solution of ethanol-water. This system is cheap, fast, and effective, and should be implemented wherever tree stripping for cooking and heating is occurring, until we come up with something better. It also provides food and livestock feed for subsistence living.

    There are many-many specific programs we can implement, without mis-classifying carbon dioxide and using it as a control mechanism. CO2 is part of our natural life-cycle. We breathe in oxygen and breathe out CO2. Plants and vegetation do the same, but in reverse. Crops, vegetation, forests, algae and seaweed, grasses, etc. – they all mitigate or sequester CO2 naturally. Oceans and bodies of water (covering 75-80 percent of the planet) absorb CO2 and release CO2 naturally. In the process, algae feeds on the CO2 on a massive scale, and it either becomes part of the food chain or settles to the bottom taking carbon with it.

    If you eliminate the real pollutants, not carbon dioxide, you will probably bring the environment back into its natural balance., Many scientists agree that classifying CO2 as a pollutant is absurd.

    Superficially regulating carbon dioxide and flipping carbon certificates is a profit scheme – for those who are positioning themselves to get a “leg up” on the system. Cap and trade is simply allowing polluters to keep polluting, at a slightly higher cost, while Green companies make easy money on them. Then we all wind-up paying for it in higher energy and production costs and lost jobs.

    Is there anybody out there who is honest and really cares about the best interests of the people? Washington needs replacements.

  4. Pingback: World Biofuels Markets Announces Speakers - Domestic Fuel