Follow this blog:
RSS

CO2 regulation to proceed in U.S. without climate bill

By | July 24, 2010, 8:03 AM PDT

The United States Senate may be deadlocked over how to proceed on climate change legislation, but the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) is proceeding with its work to curb carbon emissions - even without Congressional action.

On Thursday, U.S. Senate Democrats announced that they would delay action on a climate bill that would impose greenhouse gas limits until the fall, according to reports. While Congress deliberates, the EPA has already classified carbon dioxide as a pollutant, and is poised to regulate it.

The EPA is obligated to act to regulate CO2 emissions due to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling in the case Massachusetts v. EPA, which classified carbon dioxide as a pollutant, TIME’s political columnist noted in his blog on Friday. The case was brought on by a group of 12 states and some local governments that sought to force the EPA to regulate greenhouse gasses from motor vehicles.

Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell told Klein that a climate bill that puts a price on carbon was the only alternative to harsh EPA regulation. Cantwell joined Maine Republican Susan Collins in co-sponsoring the Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s Renewal (CLEAR) Act.

The CLEAR act would require the 2000 top polluters in the U.S. to purchase rights to emit CO2, with 75 percent of the proceeds being distributed among taxpayers as a dividend and the remainder being invested into alternative energy projects, Klein explained.

Klein also quoted Republican Senator Lindsey Graham as previously having said: “There’s no question that we will have a bill before the EPA regulations kick in.”

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

David Worthington

About David Worthington

David Worthington is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

David Worthington

David Worthington

Contributing Editor, Energy

David Worthington has written for BetaNews, eWeek, PC World, Technologizer and ZDNet. Formerly, he was a senior editor at SD Times. He holds a degree from Temple University. He is based in New York.

Follow him on Twitter.

David Worthington

David Worthington

David does not have financial holdings that would influence how or what he covers. Occasionally he consults for other companies; should David cover a topic in which a client is involved, he will disclose this fact in his writing. His views do not represent those of ScaleOut Software.

He writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
23
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
0 Votes
+ -
RE: CO2 regulation to proceed in U.S. without climate bill
I want to see them suck money out of the biggest CO2 producers (volcanoes), THEN they can sweat the small stuff.
Posted by psiEnergos
26th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: CO2 regulation to proceed in U.S. without climate bill
If those that believe CO2 is a pollutant and is responsible for "man made" global warming would just do the rest of us a favor and stop stealing our air, the world would be better off.

I would love to see a true scientific study PROVING thee is such a thing as "man made global warming"

Anyone....
Posted by Albee_Freeoneday
26th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Yippee !
I am looking forward to being taxed more on the illusion of global warming and the myth that CO2 is a dangerous gas that plants absorb. I really looking forward to my energy bill rising $200-300 per month more. I look forward to watching the government waste more of my money in useless ways all the while the issue they claim they support will not be helped.

Let's play with monopoly money and watch Al Gore make billions. Never mind that China and India will do nothing at all. It is great timing that we do this in a giant recession that will only make joblessness even worse.

Time to cut my power lines or I will move to a state that will not support this. What a mess this government we have now is.
Posted by pizzaman7
26th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: CO2 regulation to proceed in U.S. without climate bill
Humans breath out CO2. Will we have to purchase rights to omit CO2?
Posted by dgompert
26th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
dgompert: both you and Melissa Mahony are using the wrong word...
in your posts. It should be "emit" in place of "omit".

BTW, it's only a matter of time before the madness is stopped by clear-thinking politicians who are not out to control the whole economy, either directly through taxes and fees, or indirectly through things like "carbon taxes".

The people in charge now are killing the economies, both local and national through their madness. The economies of those states that have the most social programs and most social control over the people and their economies are the ones demonstrating the most problems right now. Look to California and New York and Massachusetts and Illinois and Michigan for the examples of how not to run governments. They are prime examples of the stupidity which could overtake the whole country, and we're well underway towards that.
Posted by adornoe@...
26th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: CO2 regulation to proceed in U.S. without climate bill
The billions are being made by the oil companies, not Al Gore. If you care to read any science journals, you will see all the proof that you need. Anybody who listens to the likes of Rush Limbaugh is an idiot. We don't need you to continue destroying my home.
Posted by sorgfelt
26th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
bpatin: It is stupidity like yours that is destroying your home, and that
of many others around you.

Any science journal that gives any credibility to the junk science of global warming, is well, a junk journal and not worth investing a few bucks a month to purchase (or even read).

BTW, Rush Limbaugh and others like him are turning out to be correct and it's the like of Gore that are getting very rich from the junk science.

So, turning it back at you, only an idiot would believe in global warming.

BTW, "oil companies" are not inanimate objects. There are millions of people who make money from their products, including investors and distributors and the users of those products. In fact, it's not just millions of people who make money from the "oil", it's billions of people. You close down the oil industries and you close down all economies around the globe. See how stupid it is now to demonize the "oil companies"?

BTW, which oil companies profited during the middle ages when the globe was a lot warmer than it is now?
Posted by adornoe@...
26th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: CO2 regulation to proceed in U.S. without climate bill
If only the intelligent smart energy AGW accolates would practice what they preach and hold their breath so as to limit their carbon footprint.
Posted by CTBCo
26th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Actually, this is good news.
Congress can regulate and tax CO2 all it wants if it chooses to do
so. And at this time, they're wisely choosing not to because
enough people realize that doing so will cost Americans billions, if
not their jobs.

However, under the law the EPA has to make its case for CO2 as
a pollutant under critical scientific review. (Al Gore's movie,
contrary to popular media narrative does not consist of a "critical
scientific review") This means that it's only a matter of time until
it's back to court for the warm-mongers, and perhaps we will
finally get a more honest public debate on the science for and
against CO2-based anthropogenic global warming.

Bring it on. It's about time.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
26th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Volcanoes emit about 3% of what human CO2 emissions are.
psiEnergos, It would be more helpful to your argument if you didn't make false statements that are easily disproven. In an average year volcanoes emit about 3% of the CO2 that humans emit from burning fossil fuels. It would take a supervolcano eruption like the Yellowstone caldera going off to equal human emissions and if that happens we've got better things to worry about than CO2.

And to those who display their ignorance by worrying about the CO2 they exhale you can rest your conscience. The CO2 you exhale is from CO2 that the plants you are eating (and the plants the animals your meat comes from ate) absorbed from the atmosphere when they grew so it's merely part of the normal carbon cycle that's been operating for billions of years. The carbon in fossil fuels though has been sequestered from the atmosphere for (in most cases) hundreds of millions of years and has not been a part of the carbon cycle recently so burning it does raise the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

You know, I feel kind for sorry for some of you like Albee, adornoe & John who are regulars here. You may be able to hold off the regulation of CO2 for a few more years but the reality of the globally warming world is overtaking all of us and you're going to end up road kill if you don't wise up. Your grandchildren will be asking you "What were you thinking?".
Posted by riverat1
26th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: CO2 regulation to proceed in U.S. without climate bill
So volcanoes only put out 3% compared to man? Interesting. I have read several sources that claimed that it was the other way around roughly. Plus, I have also read that there is a much bigger factor in the atmosphere than CO2 for global warming. It is called H2O....

By the way, isn't it sweet irony that some of the biggest public figures all teaching us how important it is that we reduce our carbon footprint and live in tiny spaces to reduce our energy needs are often some of the same people who fly private jets to and fro while owning one or more multimillion dollar mansions....

I used to believe in man caused global warming. Then I learned more and decided that I am still for energy independence, except now I don't believe in man caused global warming (not to be confused with man-caused pollution or a natural state of global warming, both of which I do believe are real), now I want energy independence for myself if I can manage it so that when politicians mess up our energy grid and brownouts are common everywhere and everyday that my home still has electricity. In other words, personal energy independence from stupid politics.
Posted by dedrizen
26th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: CO2 regulation to proceed in U.S. without climate bill
Last week Harry Reid (D) stated that they didn't have enough Republican support to get this passed. Yet they didn't have a single Republican support Obamacare and it went through. It seems that they don't need laws anymore to legislate their madness.

FWIW, there is another pollutant that they might consider legislating in the future. It is colorless, odorless, and tasteless. It is toxic to plants. It is found in most of our water, food, and air supply. It causes premature aging in humans and animals who are over exposed to it. It is so corrosive that it can degrade most metals causing them to become brittle. As a byproduct of smelting, it is flammable. It's presence can increase the likelihood of explosions. It is a primary agent used in slash and burn deforestation. While taking Vitamin C and Vitamin E can prevent some of the adverse affects to exposure to this pollutant, this pollutant can bond with LDL cholesterol in the body for serious consequences. Before it reached critical levels in the earth's atmosphere, forest fires and even lightning were all but non-existent.

"The introduction of the pure [form of this chemical] prompts the hypothalamus to flood the body with a cocktail of hormones and neurotransmitters which serve to hamper heart rate, and further reduce the circulatory system?s effectiveness. But Harper also found that by adding a mere 5% CO2, all the detrimental effects ... are negated." -

This chemical, if present in humans, also prevents resuscitation by causing cellular death in patients by inducing a condition called reperfusion. So if you are going to die, don't do it for too long or this chemical will really kill you.

This chemical? Oxygen.

Like with the many attempted bans on Dihydrogen Monoxide, politicians will seek to save us from the ills of our life while being truly ignorant of the facts. If they can convince us that we are in danger and they have the solution then they will have the power, fame, money, and prestige to perform truly despicable acts.
Posted by stygian@...
26th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Volcanic CO2, H2O & O2
@dedrizen, I was wrong, volcanoes on average put out less than 1% of CO2 compared to human fossil fuel burning. See here.

It is true that water vapor causes over twice as much of the greenhouse effect as CO2. But that's beside the point because water vapor can not drive global warming. That is because he amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is strictly limited by temperature. If the level of water vapor becomes greater than the ambient temperature can support it is immediately reduced by precipitating out in the form of rain, snow, dew, etc. CO2 doesn't precipitate out under any conditions found on the surface of the Earth (it may be just barely possible it might get cold enough on Antarctica that some CO2 could precipitate out as frost occasionally but it would be a minuscule amount). It is true that the global warming we've seen in the last several decades has increase the level of water vapor in the atmosphere by about 4% which does add it's own kick to the warming but something besides water vapor had to cause the temperature to increase before the water vapor would increase. The 4% rise in water vapor from global warming appears to be a factor in the large precipitation events we've been seeing lately (Snow last winter in DC, flooding in the Midwest this spring and summer among others).

@stygian, the health care bill was passed by reconciliation. I'm not sure you could use that for a broad climate and energy bill.

Oxygen in the atmosphere is much like CO2 in that both too much of it and too little of it would be a problem. But everything on the Earth is well adapted to the current level of O2 (~21%) And the level of O2 in the atmosphere is actually dropping by a measurable amount, largely because of the amount of it getting tied up in CO2. Because the level O2 is 537 times the level of CO2 it's not a problem though. We probably can't burn enough carbon to seriously affect O2 levels.

Has any government ever seriously considered banning dihydrogen monoxide? I know some fake petitions have occasionally been passed around but I've never heard about it actually reaching the level of legislative action.
Posted by riverat1
26th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Actually, the people I will feel sorry for...
...are those who find themselves useless in a post-industrial post-
carbon age. Depending on who you listen to, the only way to
stop the effects of our carbon spewing to date is to either reduce
global population by about 2/3rds, or reduce our standard of
living to the average in Afghanistan. Doing anything less would
be absolutely pointless.

I know people who've lived in Afghanistan, and I really don't think
most of you would be happy with the living standard there.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
27th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: CO2 regulation to proceed in U.S. without climate bill
"classified carbon dioxide as a pollutant"

Uhhh.. CO2 is vital to all plant life on earth.

We exhale CO2, so I guess we need to stop breathing... but wait, if we quit exhaling, what will plants and trees do without the CO2 we exhale..

"Global Warming" ??? Look at the real satellite data. Global temperatures have dropped since 1998.

Year Mo Globe
1998 June 0.57
2010 June 0.44

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
Posted by bb_apptix
27th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: CO2 regulation to proceed in U.S. without climate bill
Here's the Global Temperature Trend:
http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/uah_global_temperature_anomalies1.png
Posted by bb_apptix
27th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: CO2 regulation to proceed in U.S. without climate bill
@Riverat1 Despite your obviously singular arsenal of ad hominem attacks (not surprising, in this day an age it seems to be the fad to cherry pick the internet to support your point of view and simply 'insult' anyone who seems to oppose it), you obviously missed the point of the post in you haste to publicly present yourself as the 'only intellectual in the room' (which from your arsenal, you clearly are not even close to holding the title for the time being).

Instead of reading what I posted at face value, you postulated a meaning that was not presented.At no time did I say volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans. I said they are the biggest CO2 producers. In the singular sense, they are. Show me one other item either man made or natural that can, one at a time, not collectively, in the period of time an eruption can take that can produce more CO2 on its own. Collectively is a whole different argument and not one presented by me.

Personally I think the charge to tax the hell out of everything to the point it invades the rights and privacy of others simply wrong. Economics has always been a motivating factor, but it can be used in more than one direction. Make alternatives cost effective (wow, what a concept, make the desired outcome cheaper, therefore more attractive). And for the hard core planet savers out there, making a gallon of gas $10 a gallon instead of finding a way to make solar panels cheaper or develop an alternate fuel that makes sense in NOT the same thing as making it cheaper...despite what the wingnuts in D.C. want you to believe.

Destroying the economics of a society in the way the cap and trade was originally proposed is idiotic at best as it has been agreed that without global accord this plan would do little but set back only the US by decades. The US has always prided itself as being the innovative nation. Is this what passes for innovation now (tax people into poverty here while the rest of the world happily continues to advance)?

Wake up people. Whether or not you agree with climate change propaganda, pollution is bad. With developing nation accelerating forward at stifling rates, pollution will only get worse without innovation. However a small collective has obviously latched on to this problem as an opportunity to rob us of our money and our freedom in the name of conservation. These people need to be stopped. We need to stop this pointless bickering. Its only serves to distract people from the real problems.
Posted by psiEnergos
27th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
More end-runs around due process
The EPA is now infused at a sufficiently high level to be classified as a pollutant. Forget Iran, nuke the EPA. Obesity is epidemic - the EPA has grown too big for its britches!

Cap-n-tax is a terrible idea. EPA regulation is a worse one. Neither will do anything to reduce carbon emissions (except maybe short term at a huge economic cost). The big politickers will stuff their pockets with the proceeds. The rest of the country will continue to evolve naturally to more ecologically-benign means of production.

Want to fix things the right way? Challenge industry (private, not public) to promote more eco-friendly solutions and incentivize them with tax breaks or credits for reducing undesired side effects. Don't punish the taxpayers who have been amply besieged already.
Posted by Get-Smart
27th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
?Global warming is strictly an imaginary problem..."
?Global warming is strictly an imaginary problem of the First World middleclass.?

- Physicist Dr. Denis Rancourt, a former professor and environmental science researcher at the University of Ottawa

Another Environmental Scientist Bails on Man-Made Global Warming

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/07/26/another-environmental-scientist-bails-on-man-made-global-warming/
Posted by adornoe@...
27th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: CO2 regulation to proceed in U.S. without climate bill
@psiEnergos,

I'll admit my post was a bit snarky but I get tired of playing whack-a-mole.

You said "I want to see them suck money out of the biggest CO2 producers (volcanoes)". How am I supposed to take that? Volcanoes are not the biggest producers of CO2. I suppose during a large eruption a volcano may emit more CO2 than any singular human source for a while but so what? Volcanoes have been erupting for the entire history of the Earth and have at times caused significant long term* changes in the atmosphere but there is little or no evidence of that happening in the past million years or so. What use is it to worry about something we have no control over when there are plenty of things we do control that we can do something about?

*By long term I mean changes that last at least a thousand years or so.

I didn't say anything about economic issues in my post but since you brought it up, what if the true cost of a gallon of gasoline is $10 when you include all of the external costs? Isn't it reasonable to force some of those external costs to be internalized so the market more accurately reflects what a commodity costs us? Not doing that is just putting the costs on others.

I don't like cap and trade much either. I think a straight up carbon tax imposed at the well head and mine entrance would be more effective but it's got the dreaded "tax" word associated with it. It would have to include a tax on imported products that reflects their carbon costs as well. (I've put on my asbestos underwear in anticipation of the flames I'll get for that statement).

Everyone is worried about destroying "the economy" but what is so sacred about about the existing paradigm. It's time to move beyond fossil fuels as our primary energy source and we can either be proactive and anticipate the change or reactive and respond to the hits we will be taking. It's our choice.
Posted by riverat1
27th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: CO2 regulation to proceed in U.S. without climate bill
@Riverat1 You asked: "("I want to see them suck money out of the biggest CO2 producers (volcanoes)".) How am I supposed to take that?" You answer your own question a little further on: "What use is it to worry about something we have no control over when there are plenty of things we do control that we can do something about?"

That is exactly the point. We do NOT control it. We could stop all man made carbon production in the US today (short of exhaling), right now, and it would mean little if anything without the rest of the world playing along. The intended sarcasm of volcano statement has to do with the intention of the government's willingness to tax just about anything you can ponder (If they could suck money from a volcano, they already would have by now). I accept the statement is silly, but it was meant to be so as is I think is the whole idea of taxing CO2 in general. There are better ways to control pollution without putting a death grip on your constituents.

Everyone is always pointing the finger at the US but does not take into account all the environmental protections (pollution controls) that we utilize that the rest of the world does not.
(which actually accounts for a lot of the 'costs' you indicated a desire to 'force' upon people) Sadly to date, a lot (I cant say statistically 'more', but 'alot') of money has gone into subsidizing alternate fuels that cost more to create than the benefit they provide!

As for the economy statement you made (what is so sacred?) Nothing, in fact I firmly believe that change should happen and will happen. I see no reason however to impoverish an entire group of people for the sake of such change if such change can be made gradually. I firmly believe in furthering the development of renewable sources of energy (or else I wouldn't be here :-D), but lets make sure they make sense. Make solar power affordable, stop using corn for fuel as it has already been shown that it uses more energy to create it than it provides, etc.

You and I are in agreement that we need to move beyond fossil fuels and anticipate the change. Where we seem to disagree is the methods, I don't see the need to 'ram it down peoples throats through their checkbook' (not saying you do, but that is the impression I get that you seem to support. If I am wrong, please pardon and provide a more accurate version).

I believe that with innovation (unrestricted by commercial interests that have everything to gain from stifling them) we can provide the changes far more painlessly (and more quickly than anyone is willing to believe, look at how fast CFLs took off once they became more affordable) than the alternatives big government are trying to force on us now.
Posted by psiEnergos
27th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Built on a myth...
I refuse to buy the argument that CO2 causes global warming as long as its loudest US supporter, Al Gore, continues to own 2 mansions that each uses more electricity than a small town.

There is not a windmill or solar panel is in sight at either place, but he paid for them using money earned from selling carbon credits and screaming about polar bears dying while using his private jet to fly all over the world spreading lies.

What a hypocrite?What a scam artist?.

And the global warming sheep that follow fat Al around like a god are pathetic people for believing his rants.
Posted by Hates Idiots
30th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: CO2 regulation to proceed in U.S. without climate bill
What does your personal animosity toward Al Gore have to do with the question of whether CO2 causes global warming? He's not the only hypocritical person in the world.
Posted by riverat1
1st Aug 2010
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!