Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

E.P.A. Moves to Curtail Greenhouse Gas Emissions
New York Times ^ | September 30, 2009 | John M. Broder

Posted on 09/30/2009 2:50:59 PM PDT by reaganaut1

The Environmental Protection Agency announced a proposed rule Wednesday to begin regulating greenhouse gas emissions from thousands of power plants and large industrial facilities.

The proposed rule would require polluters to install the best available technology to capture greenhouse gases whenever a new plant is opened or significantly changed. The rule applies to any industrial plant that emits at least 25,000 tons of greenhouse gases a year.

When the rule is final, the EPA said operators of as many 14,000 sources of pollution would have to get additional permits.

The proposal, long anticipated and highly controversial, marks the first government move toward controlling the emissions blamed for the warming of the planet from stationary sources. The E.P.A. has already proposed an ambitious program to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, expected to take effect early next year.

Lisa P. Jackson, the E.P.A. administrator, announced the proposal on the same day that Senators John F. Kerry and Barbara Boxer introduced sweeping climate change and energy legislation. While that bill faces a highly uncertain fate in the Senate, the Obama administration signaled its intention to move forward on global warming with or without a Congressional mandate.

Ms. Jackson, citing her authority under the Clean Air Act, said the new rule would apply only to facilities emitting 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year or more. That would exempt virtually all small businesses and farms and cover only the largest power plants, refineries and large-scale factories.

“By using the power and authority of the Clean Air Act,” Ms. Jackson said in a statement Wednesday afternoon, “we can begin reducing emissions from the nation’s largest greenhouse gas emitting facilities without placing an undue burden on the businesses that make up the vast majority of our economy.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: agenda; bho44; bhoenvironment; bhoepa; emissions; envirowackos; epa; epabrownshirts; globalwarming; greenhousegases
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-90 next last
To: Gabz

The EPA is old school ACORN.


21 posted on 09/30/2009 3:46:32 PM PDT by Boardwalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

This will be IN ADDITION TO whatever congress passes.


22 posted on 09/30/2009 3:48:46 PM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
The fine points will be decided by that separation-of-powers oxymoron: an "Administrative Law Judge."
23 posted on 09/30/2009 3:49:06 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (Grovelnator Schwarzenkaiser, fashionable fascism one charade at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Who needs legislation when there’s no new plants? I wonder what the effects of this recession have had on greenhouse gas emissions? Probably good news for the EPA. Perhaps economic activity should keep decreasing...


24 posted on 09/30/2009 3:49:14 PM PDT by ecomcon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newfreep
LOL!

The EPA can put out a rule regulating ultraviolet light emissions!

25 posted on 09/30/2009 3:50:08 PM PDT by batter (Wolverines!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: scottdeus12

Bicycles require steel and rubber. Manufacturing steel and rubber emits greenhouse gases.

Walking emits greenhouse gases.

Breathing emits greenhouse gas.


26 posted on 09/30/2009 3:51:22 PM PDT by ecomcon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
Murkowski to move against EPA:

The amendment would stop the EPA from issuing new regulations capping greenhouse gases emissions from utilities and factories for one year. Murkowski plans to ask for her amendment to be brought up before the cloture vote on the Interior and Environmental Appropriations bill, according to aides.

“We don't think the amendment is a good idea,” White House climate advisor Carol Browner said on Tuesday. “It could get you a situation where activities that should go forward — like investments in carbon capture and storage — wouldn't be able to go forward.” Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27509.html#ixzz0SdKY3pgs Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27509.html#ixzz0SdKPRBXG

27 posted on 09/30/2009 3:55:40 PM PDT by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
We should bring suit against use of the Clean Air Act. The naturally occurring CO2, essential to all life, is NOT a pollutant. A court should settle this.
28 posted on 09/30/2009 3:57:35 PM PDT by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottdeus12
These people won’t be happy until we’re all riding bicycles.

There will be no bicycle manufacturers left after these rules go into effect.

29 posted on 09/30/2009 3:58:07 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: newfreep

"EEEEPA!!!! EEEEEEPA!!!!"

30 posted on 09/30/2009 4:00:37 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Hard to decide who is dumber, EPA people or politicians. Toss-up maybe.


31 posted on 09/30/2009 4:04:37 PM PDT by mulligan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Adding costs to the biggest companies won’t affect me at all? The extra costs will simply be paid with golden pixie dust supplied by little fairies?


32 posted on 09/30/2009 4:05:28 PM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
The Environmental Protection Agency announced a proposed rule Wednesday to begin regulating greenhouse gas emissions from thousands of power plants and large industrial facilities.

Oh goody!

I want to be the one picked to install the valve on the sun.

Anyone can handle taking care of the rest of the power plants.

33 posted on 09/30/2009 4:08:05 PM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
It is time for pitchforks.

Not yet. First I want to see an analysis of what this cost and ram it down this administration's throats. I want the full information made available for all to see what this will cost each citizen. Then ... armed with sufficient information .. many American people will demand an end to this one way or the other ... then the pitchforks.

34 posted on 09/30/2009 4:10:50 PM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa
The extra costs will simply be paid with golden pixie dust supplied by little fairies?

You must have taken a wrong turn at Albuquerque and wound up in Utopia. ; )

35 posted on 09/30/2009 4:11:40 PM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

I’m cold. I want global warming.

MORE GREENHOUSE EMISSIONS! KEEP THE PLANET WARM!


36 posted on 09/30/2009 4:12:49 PM PDT by TaxRelief (Walmart: Keeping my family on-budget since 1993.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Regulations are the secret to everything. That’s how Bambi and his minions will achieve most of their goals.


37 posted on 09/30/2009 4:13:38 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steelyourfaith

With all the curtailing that has been done over the years, shouldn’t be any left........oh wait, they want more tax dollars, could that be it?


38 posted on 09/30/2009 4:16:27 PM PDT by Freddd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: livius
Regulations are the secret to everything. That’s how Bambi and his minions will achieve most of their goals.

Unless we overthrow the regulators and end the bureaucracies, we will lose.

39 posted on 09/30/2009 4:18:26 PM PDT by Chickensoup (Angry about where our country is going with the current regime at the helm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Solson

“Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled last year in a 5-4 decision(Mass v. EPA) that EPA should treat CO2 as a pollutant.”

Wait’ll the libs realize that this will include diet coke.
That pfffft you hear upon opening, yep, CO2. Fountain drinks? Yep, CO2.


40 posted on 09/30/2009 4:19:35 PM PDT by rickb308
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-90 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson