E.P.A. Moves to Curtail Greenhouse Gas Emissions

New York Times ^ | September 30, 2009 | John M. Broder

[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.

[ETL]

THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE
by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD

ABSTRACT:

"Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere [historically] is the product of oceanic respiration due to the well-known but under-appreciated solubility pump. Carbon dioxide rises out of warm ocean waters where it is added to the atmosphere. There it is mixed with residual and accidental CO2, and circulated, to be absorbed into the sink of the cold ocean waters. Next the thermohaline circulation carries the CO2-rich sea water deep into the ocean. A millennium later it appears at the surface in warm waters, saturated by lower pressure and higher temperature, to be exhausted back into the atmosphere. Throughout the past 420 millennia, comprising four interglacial periods, the Vostok record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is imprinted with, and fully characterized by, the physics of the solubility of CO2 in water, along with the lag in the deep ocean circulation.

Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase.

If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere."

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html
_______________________________________________________________

The graph above represents temperature and CO2 levels over the past 400,000 years. It is the same exact data Al Gore and the rest of the man-made global warmers refer to. The blue line is temps, the red, CO2 levels. The deep valleys represent 4 separate glaciation/ice-age periods. Look carefully at this historical relationship between temps and CO2 levels (the present is on the right hand side of the graph) and keep in mind that Gore claims this data is the 'proof' that CO2 has warmed the earth in the past. But does the data indeed show this? Nope. In fact, rising CO2 levels all throughout this 400,000-year period actually *followed* temperature increases -lagging behind by an average of 800 years! So it couldn't have been CO2 that got Earth out of these past glaciations. Yet Gore continually and dishonestly claims otherwise. Furthermore, the subsequent CO2 level increases due to dissolved CO2 being released from warming oceans, never did lead to additional warming, the so-called "run-away greenhouse effect" that Al Gore and his friends keep warning us about. In short, there is little if any evidence that CO2 had ever led to increased warming, at least not when the levels were within 10-15 times of what they are today. -etl
_______________________________________________________________

"The above chart shows the range of global temperature through the last 500 million years. There is no statistical correlation between the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere through the last 500 million years and the temperature record in this interval. In fact, one of the highest levels of carbon dioxide concentration occurred during a major ice age that occurred about 450 million years ago [Myr]. Carbon dioxide concentrations at that time were about 15 times higher than at present." [also see 180 million years ago, same thing happened]:
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=010405M
_______________________________________________________________

So, greenhouse [effect] is all about carbon dioxide, right?

Wrong. The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds [clouds of course aren't gas, but high level ones do act to trap heat from escaping, while low-lying cumulus clouds tend to reflect sunlight and thereby help cool the planet -etl]. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere.

In simple terms the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, 'Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,' Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).

The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other 'minor greenhouse gases.' As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
_______________________________________________________________

Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many 'facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activities contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
_______________________________________________________________

Water Vapor Confirmed As Major Player In Climate Change

ScienceDaily (Nov. 18, 2008) — Water vapor is known to be Earth's most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081117193013.htm

[Old Professer]

“Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, EPA is
required to regulate emissions of 189 listed toxic air
pollutants. On July 16, 1992, EPA published a list of
source categories that emit one or more of these air
toxics. For listed categories of “major” sources (those
that emit 10 tons annually or more of a listed pollutant
or 25 tons or more of a combination of pollutants)and
certain “area” sources (those that emit hazardous air
pollutants below the major source threshold), the Clean
Air Act requires EPA to develop standards that will
require the application of stringent air pollution
controls, known as maximum achievable control technology
(MACT).”

This reference will be the basis of a suit to be filed likely concurrent with the effective date of today’s announcement.

An injuction will probably be immediately prayed for.

[myknowledge]

Or driving these cars.

[Talisker]

The fine points will be decided by that separation-of-powers oxymoron: an "Administrative Law Judge."

Very, very, very well said.

[AuH2ORepublican]

“From the beginning of time, man has yearned to destroy the Sun.”

Did I get Burns’s quote right?

[St. Louis Conservative]

Yep. These people truly envy the power that leftist dictators like Chavez and Castro have.

[dr_who]

Obama and his minions are determined to f*** this country over.

[kellyrae]

A technical detail: What you quoted relates to hazardous air pollutants and MACT standards. EPA will be regulating GHGs as criteria pollutants and applying BACT standards. Even so, you are 100% correct on where this is headed legally.

The threshold for regulation of criteria pollutants under the CAA is 100 or 250 tons/year, but the regulations proposed today use a threshold of 25,000 tons/year. Using a 250 tpy threshold would require 6.1 million business to get federal operating permits. By changing the threshold, only about 14,000 permits will need to be issued.

EPA doesn’t have the authority to change the threshold that was mandated by the Clean Air Act legislation, but they are going to try.

I spent some time in greenie-blog-land this evening. It seems the greens are ecstatic that CO2 emissions are down 9% in 2009 due to the economic downturn. The cheerleading goes like this: We are already halfway to the GHG reduction goal of 20% by 2020! We can do this and it’s going to be EASY! Go green!

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

Meanwhile, Obammie the Commie and his Commie Cun# are heading over to Copenhagen ON SEPARATE JUMBO JETS ONE DAY APART.

[Old Professer]

Thanks, can’t unpush that post button.

[worst-case scenario]

Well, that’s been true for 50 years. He who controls the regulatory agencies controls the interpretation and enforcement of laws.

It was certainly the legal way to handle these issues when Reagan and Bush were in office. Did you find it fair then?

[GWynand]

I remember it being mentioned that the average person puts out as much as 1-ton CO2 per year. At 25,000 tons could we demand large universities get a permit? Or at 250 tons, every classroom building? Or Congress?

[tallyhoe]

That is why congress should not pass ambiguous legislation! Laws should be clearly written so there is question what the law says!!!

[Solson]

Not really. It's more about the higher GWP gases like Methane, Nitrous Oxide, Sulfur Oxide, and HFC's. And it's direct emissions. So, at 25,000 MT it will only hit utilities and manufacturers and processors of things like Aluminum, etc. and some food processing.

At 250 MT, that hits many many businesses including most grocery stores, some convenience stores, any large building, malls, etc.

I doubt it will get to that level and would expect Congress to get a bill with wide agreement that would stop that process by passing some sort of climate legislation.

When folks talk about CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions, CO2 is a 1. Every other gas is a factor much larger than 1. Methane is 21. NO2 is 310. SF6, which is used as an insulator in most switchgear is 22,600. One pound of SF6 emitted to the atmosphere is the equivalent of 10 MT CO2 equivalents or CO2e.

[calex59]

Back door cap and trade. The EPA needs to be done away with. In fact many government bureaus need to be sh** canned. The founders never intended for there to be departments that could make laws up out of whole cloth loosely based on their agencies roles.

[calex59]

Well, that’s been true for 50 years. He who controls the regulatory agencies controls the interpretation and enforcement of laws. It was certainly the legal way to handle these issues when Reagan and Bush were in office. Did you find it fair then?

I don't care how long it has been true. I have never found it fair, no matter who was controlling an agency such as the EPA, this is one of many bureaus that need to be shut down for good.

[TheWriterTX]

Actually, the overwhelming majority of small to medium manufacturing plants emit less than 25 TPY (Tons Per Year) in NOX and HRVOC.

The one area that's becoming a concern here in Texas in natural gas drilling. In open plains, no problem. In populated areas, it's a problem.

Some of the compressor stations emit as much as 75 TPY of NOX and 50 TPY HRVOC. Nasty stuff.

Dish, Texas, which has 12 wells and 3 compressor stations packed within 2 square miles just got a report from an independent air quality firm that shows folks in and around that area are being exposed to air born pollutant levels that are anywhere from 3X to 107X the EPA limit, including known carcinogens such as benzene.

So while I typically agree that the EPA is an over-reaching agency that does more damage to business than helping the rest of society, there are times when they do serve a purpose.

Unfortunately, it's my understanding that energy producers such as oil and gas companies are typically exempt from these standards.

[1010RD]

Didn’t the Founders want the executive and legislative branches merged into one? Isn’t that the way great societies succeeded in the past or am I confusing that with oligarchies?

[Red in Blue PA]

I am currently out of work.....guess I shouldn’t plan on working anytime soon with these clowns in office.

[roaddog727]

THe EPA is better off trying to regulate the emissions from Volcanos. Volcanos put out way more CO2 and SO2 than human activity.