Posting in Energy
The EPA has issued guidance to big polluters to become more energy efficient ahead of new rules regulating greenhouse gas emissions.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is pushing energy efficiency to nudge big polluters toward compliance ahead of its new greenhouse gas rules, according to press reports.
The EPA today announced a new initiative called best available control technologies, or BACT, that would offer guidance to coal power plants and manufactures about which emission reducing technologies are most appropriate for them.
Following the suggestions is mandatory when constructing new facilities and expansions of existing facilities, Reuters reports.
Industry advocates have argued that the guidelines are tantamount to a moratorium on building, while environmental groups believe that the EPA will hasten the adoption of new technologies.
The suggestions include upgrading boilers and other means to burn coal more efficiently using existing technologies. Other improvements focus on fuel savings and lowering emissions of fine particles into the air.
The agency opted not to force industry to adopt specific technologies, quelling industry fears about mandatory investments in expensive and potentially unproven technologies, according to Reuters.
In the absence Congressional action on climate change legislation, big polluters including cement makers, power plants, and refineries will be required to obtain permits from the EPA for greenhouse gas emissions starting on January 11.
Political opposition to the rules is likely to be mounted in the House of Representatives where numerous Republican candidates for chairperson of the House’s energy committee are not sold on climate change science, or are even opposed on religious grounds.
Nov 10, 2010
abear, The article in the link says "Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) ... maintains that we do not have to worry about climate change because God promised in the Bible not to destroy the world again after Noah?s flood." Of course that says nothing about people destroying the world on our own. But I don't think global warming is going to destroy the world. The planet will continue and eventually recover (on a scale of hundreds of thousands to millions of years). What may be destroyed by climate change is the complex modern civilization we all live in. Please tell me what science in on the side of those opposed to climate change rules. I keep looking for it and haven't been able to find any.
Lacking business among Americans unconvinced that man made global warming is real, the Chicago Climate Exchange will close its door on December 31st 2010. Investor.com summed it up perfectly. - - - As the case for global warming and cap-and-trade has collapsed, so too has the market that was to exploit this manufactured crisis for fun and profit. The climate-change bubble has burst. - - -
Interesting to call the conclusions of the National Academy of Sciences, American Physical Society, IPCC, NOAA, 98% of the world's climatologists, Nature journal, New Scientist journal, Scientific American, Science News, and on and on as being based on no scientific evidence.
Opposed on religious grounds? That's a new one. It has become clear that those in favor of climate change legislation must favor it on religious grounds, since they have a complete lack of scientific evidence. But those opposed to the climate change rules have science on their side, and I have yet to hear any of them make the argument on religious grounds.