- ‹ previous
- 1596 of 2798
- next ›
Regulating Carbon Dioxide
Last year the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA is required to decide if carbon dioxide is a pollutant as defined by the Clean Air Act. The Bush White House basically just ignored the ruling, but now there's a new sheriff in town:
The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to act for the first time to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that scientists blame for the warming of the planet, according to top Obama administration officials.
....Lisa P. Jackson, the new E.P.A. administrator, said in an interview that she had asked her staff to review the latest scientific evidence and prepare the documentation for a so-called endangerment finding....If the environmental agency determines that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant to be regulated under the Clean Air Act, it would set off one of the most extensive regulatory rule makings in history. Ms. Jackson knows that she would be stepping into a minefield of Congressional and industry opposition and said that she was trying to devise a program that allayed these worries.
This is sort of a good-news-bad-news situation. The bad news is that the Clean Air Act probably isn't a very good vehicle for regulating greenhouse gases. Its state-based machinery just wasn't built for something like this. The good news is that this very fact might act as a spur for Congress to enact something better, such as a national carbon tax, cap-and-trade plan, or even simply some more appropriately designed regulation. Of these, cap-and-trade seems to be the most likely candidate, since it has support both in Congress and the White House already, and it might pick up some Republican votes it wouldn't otherwise get if the alternative is to let the hated EPA start writing its own rules.
And if it doesn't act as a spur? Then it's still good news, because it means at least we'll get something, even if it's not the most efficient regulatory regime we can imagine. All things considered, I'm a fan of cap-and-trade myself, but I figure any port in a storm. If I can't get what I want, I'll settle for the EPA at least getting the ball rolling. Eventually the business community will scream hard enough to make Congress do something intelligent.
Congress? Intelligent? In the same sentence?
to make Congress do something intelligent
Stop it, you're killing me!
dangerous pollutant?
I must admit I am on the side of greenhouse-gas econo-critics. A lot of things produce CO2 (e.g. animals) and I would rather not include our branch of biota as a enemy of good environmental policy. The politics don't work well, and frankly they shouldn't be necessary to spur the required changes.
clean air act
Eventually the business community will scream hard enough to make Congress do something intelligent.
My guess is Boehner will use it as an opportunity to suggest the gutting of the clean air act.
Or the supreme court will use it in an argument for pulling the rug out from underneath it.
" A lot of things produce
" A lot of things produce CO2 (e.g. animals) and I would rather not include our branch of biota as a enemy of good environmental policy."
Sigh. The evidence that humans are producing a dramatic rise in atmospheric CO2 is overwhelming. If you have evidence to the contrary, or can point to it on the web, I wish you share it.
"The politics don't work well"
But the science is in great shape. Does reality matter?
Sigh. The evidence that
Sigh. The evidence that humans are producing a dramatic rise in atmospheric CO2 is overwhelming.
But don't we need massive immigration to continue pyramid funding of Social Security? Don't more people produce more CO2?
Just because Al says it...
Doesn't make it true... (In fact when Al Gore says it, grab your wallet and assume it's a lie until proven otherwise...)
Can you produce any real scientific evidence that a rise in atmospheric CO2 is causing global warming?
The evidence is rises in CO2 follow, REPEAT FOLLOW, rises in global tempuratures.
Please, share your overwhelming proof...
So if humans produce CO2,
So if humans produce CO2, and it's found to be toxic, then we shouldn't...reproduce! Problem solved! next thing you know the govt will regulate how many children you can have like China, all in the name of saving the earth of course, screw the species.
So if humans produce CO2,
So if humans produce CO2, and it's found to be toxic, then we shouldn't...reproduce! Problem solved! next thing you know the govt will regulate how many children you can have like China, all in the name of saving the earth of course, screw the species.
So if humans produce CO2,
So if humans produce CO2, and it's found to be toxic, then we shouldn't...reproduce! Problem solved! next thing you know the govt will regulate how many children you can have like China, all in the name of saving the earth of course, screw the species.
Is That Snark?
"Eventually the business community will scream hard enough to make Congress do something intelligent."
??
"But don't we need massive immigration to continue pyramid funding of Social Security?"
No.
" Don't more people produce more CO2?"
No. Burning more fossil fuels produces more CO2.
You're kidding right? I can never tell.
The last I checked humans
The last I checked humans exhale CO2. So, when do we start population control and needing baby-permits from the "carbon police"?
Gas Tax
This is, at present, politically tough (okay, damn near impossible), but I think it would be worth the effort lobbying for it as a matter of public education.
A measure of the political risks and difficulties is the California state budget compromise that just passed--after removal of the gas tax to appease State Senator Abel Maldanado.
A gas tax is the easiest-to-understand solution, and, since people really need to understand, I think it would be worth pushing for, pushing for, and pushing some more.
Time was when progressives pushed for what was right without political calculus, which is why we have a progressive income tax, directly elected senators, and the right to form unions.
A gas tax, although regressive, would raise a lot of money with little administrative burden (since such taxes are already in place). It would also collect money from the substantial underground economy, whose members pays state and federal taxes at the zero percent rate.
The proceeds could be used to for an increase in the earned income tax credit and other measures--25 cent local transit fares, for example--to lighten its burden on those least able to stand the pain.
Americans need to get with the program here. I don't think we should try to do it in some loosey-goosey half-assed way in the hope that they won't notice.
Doubling the price of gas would be hard to miss.