EPA Poised to Declare CO2 a Public Danger

The Wall Street Journal ^ | DECEMBER 5, 2009 | Ian Talley

[Delacon]

WASHINGTON--The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will early next week, possibly as soon as Monday, officially declare carbon dioxide a public danger, a trigger that could mean regulation for emitters across the economy, according to several people close to the matter.

Such an "endangerment" decision is necessary for the EPA to move ahead early next year with new emission standards for cars. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has said it could also mean large emitters such as power stations, cement kilns, crude-oil refineries and chemical plants would have to curb their greenhouse gas output.

The announcement would also give President Barack Obama and his climate envoy negotiating leverage at a global climate summit starting next week in Copenhagen, Denmark and increase pressure on Congress to pass a climate bill that would modify the price of polluting.

While environmentalists celebrate EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases, it has caused many large emitters to cringe at the potential costs of compliance.

According to a preliminary endangerment finding published in April, EPA scientists fear that man-made carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are contributing to a warming of the global climate. Senior EPA officials said in November the agency would likely make a final decision in December around the time of the summit.

Joe Mendelson, Global Warming Policy Director for National Wildlife Federation, said the endangerment decision, would happen at "absolutely the right time."

"With House legislation passed, a bipartisan Senate bill in the works, and strong EPA action a virtual certainty, the president goes to Copenhagen with a very strong hand to play," Mr. Mendelson said.

The EPA declaration would also ratchet up the pressure on U.S. lawmakers to pass legislation that analysts say would cut emissions in a more economically efficient way. Although the House has passed a climate bill, movement of similar 

[SCalGal]

Here’s what I think is happening: Obama and the left has found another way to control the population. It’s a glacial slow coup d’etat, like the Bolsheviks taking over the country, but they’re doing it so slowly that most of us don’t notice. Everything that combusts a fuel produces C02 - therefore, individuals can be controlled. And folks need health care... and college loans are now controlled by the government, something which passed by practically without comment... and most mortgages are now under government control... yep, there’s a pattern here. And that’s just what has been done in the past year. Instead of storming the palace, the left has decided to spend years getting to know those in power, and slowly, over decades, put in place a little thing here and a little thing there, and now we’re at the end game - the elites with their dachas and Lear jets headed to Copenhagen, while the peasants lose their jobs and get taxed into poverty.

Add: CA's water supply to the central valley (read FOOD) has been shut off. There's another Act that I can't remember the name of right now to put all navigational waters under gov control.

The "Food Safety Act", if passed, will cause your home garden to be inspected. H$U$ has been pushing "anti-factory farming" (read FOOD) legislation, and getting it passed.

Schools were taken over some time ago.

Included in the takeover of healthcare should be the Codex Alimentarius, which is incorporated in CAFTA.

[Ben Ficklin]

In 2007 SCOTUS ruled(5-4) that CO2 was a pollutant and told EPA to regulate it in accordance with the Clean Air Act.

[Niteflyr]

Soooo....will Obama cut down on the tiresome speeches?

If we could curb the "spewage" of Barry and Al "so I lied" Gore we could cut carbon emissions in half...

[Art in Idaho]

You gotta read this: The Conclusions from the Global Warming Petition Project Here

"There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape. There is no reason to limit human production of CO2, CH4, and other minor greenhouse gases as has been proposed (82,83,97,123).

We also need not worry about environmental calamities even if the current natural warming trend continues. The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects. Warmer weather extends growing seasons and generally improves the habitability of colder regions.

As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people.

The United States and other countries need to produce more energy, not less. The most practical, economical, and environmentally sound methods available are hydrocarbon and nuclear technologies.

Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not harmfully warmed the Earth, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will not do so in the foreseeable future. The CO2 produced does, however, accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also flourishes, and the diversity of plant and animal life is increased.

Human activities are producing part of the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of this CO2 increase. Our children will therefore enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed."

Okay EPA, show me your response. Show me your data man! If you plan on wrecking our country, we're not going down without a huge fight!

[narses]

Bad. Of course vegans flatulate more than those who hunt well. More bad.

[Canedawg]

I’m poised to declare the entire federal government as hazardous to our well-being.

[grumpygresh]

Didn’t ya know, that because the temperatures have decreased over the past 10 years, now, high C02 levels actually cause global cooling or anything that will raise taxes for my Marxist government and kill US manufacturing. I had a little talk with some of my scientists and guess what, the debate is over.
When those old people see their energy bill skyrocket, I know they will do the right thing and turn off the heat (or have a fatal heart attack). Who cares if we find a few of them cold and stiff in their apartments. They were just trying to save money and the planet too. We can also save a bundle on social security and Medicare. And besides, there all gonna’ vote Republican next year.
A big fist pump and shout out to all you drones and a happy Ramadan. You guys at NBC are gonna love the parties at my house this season.
Dear Leader

[Art in Idaho]

I’m poised to declare the entire federal government as hazardous to our well-being.

Amen to that! Is there anything they're doing now that is for the good of We the People, or is it all to destroy America as we know us and flush us into Socialism and an eventual One World Socialist/Communist government run by guess who. . . oh, I just thought of a new one, Sorosism.

[Delacon]

Not to hear my wife tell it.

[FreedomPoster]

That is absolutely spot on, sir!

[Electric Graffiti]

Btw the EPA could come out with its findings(read laws) as early as this Monday

The trial and hangings could come as early as Tuesday.

[piasa]

What is the EPA going to do to humans?

They seem to have a lot of ideas, pizz be upon them:

1977 : (FUTURE OBAMA SCIENCE CZAR HOLDREN ON POPULATION)Holdren gave a clear indication of his philosophical views in the 1977 book Ecoscience, which he co-authored with Paul and Anne Ehrlich. [1] In its pages, the authors noted, "The neo-Malthusiasn view proposes...population limitation and redistribution of wealth." They concluded, "On these points, we find ourselves firmly in the neo-Malthusian camp" (p. 954).
Economist Thomas Malthus is one of the most literally anti-human theorists in human history. He viewed overpopulation as the fount of all woe, but one which could be staunched with enough blood. In "An Essay on the Principle of Population" Malthus wrote, "All the children who are born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the death of grown persons...if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use...and court the return of the plague."
Like their intellectual forebear, Holdren and the Ehrlichs proposed their own acceptable sacrifice to the environment.
Compulsory Abortion for American Women
The trio [Holdren and the Ehrlichs] prescribed a rigidly enforced, government-imposed limit of two children per family. Holdren and the Ehrlichs maintained "there exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated." Hiding behind the passive voice, they note, "it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."
(Emphasis added.) To underscore they mean business, they conclude, "If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" (pp. 837-838). Moreover, if the United States government refuses to take proper measures, they authorize the United Nations to take compelling force.
------ "Obama’s Biggest Radical," By: Ben Johnson, FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, February 27, 2009. "A Comprehensive Planetary Regime"

[SCalGal]

There's more from Peter Singer; deaths and population control. This has the potential to make China's one child policy look humane.

[5by5]

In the past, the EPA has reliend upon the findings of the IPCC AR reports in finding that Co2 is a danger.

Steve McIntyre, of Climate Audit and the “evil one” mentioned so often in the CRUtape Letters, has made the argument the AR4 report doesn’t meet the EPA’s own guidelines for “influential articles.”

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5818
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6354
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/McIntyre_Submission_to_EPA.pdf

The EPA publishes standards for peer-review and has a submission process for articles used as evidence in their findings. This process has not been followed and in light of the recent revelations in CliamteGate, it is unlikely to succeed. Instead they just pretend it’s the gold-plated truth.

If EPA issues a CO2 Endangerment Finding based on the fraud published by the IPCC, they should be sued.

Clearly the EPA’s announcement is one act in the Kabuki theatre occurring in Copenhagen.

[onedoug]

Liberals should stop exhaling.

[Delacon]

Speaking of petitions, CEI has sent one to the EPA.

United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171

 

 

 

In re:

Proposed Endangerment and

Cause or Contribute Findings for

Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(A)

of the Clean Air Act; Proposed Rule,

74 FR 18,886 (Apr. 24, 2009)

 

 

Supplement to the

October 5^th Petition of the Competitive Enterprise Institute

To Reopen This Proceeding in Light of

Newly Released Information

Competitive Enterprise Institute

1899 L Street, NW, 12^th Floor

Washington, D.C. 20036

(202) 331-1010

 

Sam Kazman, General Counsel

Hans Bader, Senior Counsel

 

December 2, 2009

 

Environmental Protection Agency

EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC)

Mailcode 6102T

Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20460

 

By electronic delivery to: GHG-Endangerment-Docket@epa.gov

And by hand delivery to the EPA Docket Center

 

Emergency Supplement to CEI’s October 5^th Petition To Reopen This Proceeding in Light of Newly Released Information

Re:  Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for

Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171

 

 

Contact Information

 

Name: Sam Kazman, General Counsel

Organization: Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)

Mailing Address: 1899 L Street, 12^th Floor

Washington, DC 20036

Phone: 202-331-2265

E-mail: skazman@cei.org

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

On October 5, CEI petitioned EPA to reopen its Endangerment Proceeding because of a disclosure by the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) that it had destroyed the raw data for its data set of global surface temperatures.  In our view, this destruction of data was a major breach of scientific standards.  It warranted a reexamination of the studies based on that data, and a reopening of the comment period to allow public response to this issue.

 

EPA has not responded to our petition. 

 

In the past two weeks, however, new information has surfaced which casts far greater doubt on the validity of CRU’s work.  In the view of many, this information destroys CRU’s reputation entirely.  Yesterday, CRU director Dr. Phil Jones announced that he was stepping down from his position temporarily while the university conducts an investigation of the released material.  CRU Update (Dec. 1, 2009), http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate

 

PURPOSE OF THIS FILING

 

The purpose of this filing is to put EPA on notice that new information has very recently been released, whose content is so grave that it may well destroy EPA’s basis for an Endangerment Finding.  At a minimum, it requires EPA to reopen this proceeding and engage in a full examination of this information, accompanied by public comment.  If the new material is serious enough to have led to the departure, at least temporarily, of CRU’s Director, then for that same reason it justifies EPA’s reopening this proceeding.

 

CEI will submit to EPA a more detailed examination of the new information shortly.  However, given the possibility that EPA may be on the verge of issuing its final decision, it is important that this agency be formally notified of both the existence of this information and the fact of Dr. Phil Jones’ departure from CRU.

 

THE NATURE OF THE NEW INFORMATION

 

On Thursday, November 19^th several thousand emails and documents from the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University became available for download from the Internet.  

 

The released information is voluminous.  It consists of more than 157 megabytes of data, including over 1,000 emails and 3,400 other documents.  Its contents are still being analyzed, and will be for some time to come, but a number of things are apparent.  There were conscious efforts by leading climate scientists to misrepresent or falsify data, to evade FOIA requests, and to inject intentional bias into the scientific peer review process.  There were also admissions in these emails that global warming largely ceased in the last 10-15 years, despite public claims that it was continuing.  

 

In addition to the emails, sections of annotated computer code from programs used to process climate data were among the revealed documents.   The annotations by programmers indicate that the programs were written in such a way as to artificially adjust the data to meet their needs.

 

Two representative examples of analyses of this information are:  I. Murray, Three Things You Absolutely Must Know About Climategate (Nov. 24, 2009), http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/three-things-you-absolutely-must-know-about-climategate/; C. Monckton, Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered (Sept. 12, 2008), http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/climate_sensitivity_reconsidered.pdf

 

 

 

This new information casts grave doubt on the body of research underlying EPA’s Endangerment Proposal, and may well entirely destroy the basis for EPA’s proceeding; namely, the major assessment reports of both the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). 

74 FR 18,894 col. 1. 

 

A zip folder containing the files may be downloaded from these two locations:

http://www.filedropper.com/foi2009

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=XD050VKY

A search engine for browsing through the emails by keyword may be found here:

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/

 

In addition, CEI is today filing a CD containing the data with EPA’s Docket Center.

 

CONCLUSION

 

For the foregoing reasons, EPA should immediately suspend any action it is about to take on an Endangerment Finding, and reopen this proceeding for an investigation of, and public comment on, the newly-released information.

[SaraJohnson]

My sons and husband will be joining you in fart jail.

[Humble Servant]

Damn EPA’s a Public Danger.

[Niteflyr]

My sons and husband will be joining you in fart jail.

First it was Sheryl Crow saying we should only use one square of toilet paper...and now a fart fine....

[aruanan]

How about an effort to identify each and every employee of the EPA as a public enemy? What people don't seem to realize is that the so-called natural environment is not the primary environment of human beings. The human environment is a human creation. Living in houses, driving cars, cooking food, refrigerating it, using technology to cool ourselves when hot, to warm ourselves when cold, to dry ourselves when too humid, making and wearing clothes, entertaining ourselves in various manners, all these things are what constitutes the true human environment. Anything that threatens these things threatens the quality of our lives as humans. The EPA and the various environmentalist nutcases are all dedicated to preserving the so-called "natural" environment at the expense of human activity. They are, therefore, enemies of human activity and are public enemies as much as Muslim extremists who want to kill us for being infidels. Besides, most of them are socialists of varying degrees and, therefore, are enemies of individual human liberty.