EPA calls greenhouse gases a public threat

The Environmental Protection Agency on Friday took the first step toward regulating greenhouse gas emissions by proposing a ruling to declare greenhouse gases a cause of global warming and a threat to public welfare.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson proposed the ruling after completing the scientific review ordered by the Supreme Court in 2007, when it ruled that the agency has the authority to regulate emissions from vehicles. Before the EPA can officially adopt the ruling or take any regulatory actions, the proposed ruling must undergo a 60-day public comment period.

"This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations," Jackson said in a statement. "Fortunately, it follows President Obama's call for a low carbon economy and strong leadership in Congress on clean energy and climate legislation. This pollution problem has a solution-one that will create millions of green jobs and end our country's dependence on foreign oil."

The proposed ruling is based on a peer-reviewed scientific analysis of the six gases in question: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride.

"The current global atmospheric concentrations of the six greenhouse gases are now at unprecedented and record high levels compared to both the recent and distant past," the ruling (PDF) says. "It is also unambiguous that the current elevated greenhouse gas concentrations are the primary result of human activities."

It also calls the U.S. transportation sector is a "significant contributor" to U.S. and global carbon emissions.

In addition to saying human emissions have caused an increase of global temperatures and subsequently changes like increased drought, more intense storms, and more flooding, the ruling says climate change has serious national security implications.

"Climate change can aggravate existing problems in certain regions of the world such as poverty, social tensions, general environmental degradation, and conflict over increasingly scarce water resources," it says.

While the proposed ruling could lead to regulatory action, Jackson, President Obama, and other administration leaders have said they would prefer to see comprehensive legislation to address the issue.

"There are things that can be done that won't quite work within the existing law," White House "energy czar" Carol Browner said Monday.

Congressional hearings are set to begin on Tuesday on a cap-and-trade bill under consideration.

Washington is also attempting to address climate change and carbon emissions in conjunction with other nations. President Obama and Mexican President Felipe Calderon announced Thursday that Mexico and the U.S. are establishing a "bilateral framework on clean energy and climate change" that will allow for greater political and technical cooperation and facilitate joint efforts to develop clean energy economies. Players in the global carbon market expect actions by the United States to have a significant impact on the market.

[William Crow]

Restrict exercise. Its triples or quadruples CO2 output.

[Random_Walk]

Kill humans, starting with the bureaucrats and lobbyists in Washington DC... that oughta cut down on CO2 emissions (and a LOT of hot air).

[bn-tx]

Why don't they just outlaw O2? They could save a lot of time and it would make just as much sense. Good thing we have put Science back in Her rightful place. I think Bugs would classify the EPA as 'ultra-maroons' :O

[Michichael]

Better get right on locking down the biggest producers of CO2. Those Volcanoes are going down, them and their production of 85% or more of the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere are really destroying the planet with their unnatural influence.

[WithInSight]

"...emissions of CO2 by human activities are currently more than 130 times greater than the quantity emitted by volcanoes, amounting to about 27 billion tonnes per year" (as per a report on wikipedia about "co2" which referenced a report from http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php)

[biffhenerson]

Lol. Wow, numbers. Big numbers right? What does it mean? Is 27 billion tonnes per year alot? It is nothing. Heck we give bailouts bigger than that. lol. Even if the numbers meant anything, they are just a single drop of water in the ocean. they are just a small puff of air when you consider 27 billon tonnes against the grand scheme of things. Have you seen the size of the planet and the enormous size of the atmosphere? The evil humans are wrecking it? lol. A small group of foolish humans are big pain in the butt. All they want is money plain and simple. They will destroy our country over the next 100 years. Who cares about the planet in 1 million years.

[Michichael]

Five hundred million years ago carbon dioxide was 20 times more prevalent than today, decreasing to 4-5 times during the Jurassic period and then maintained a slow decline until the industrial revolution, with a particularly swift reduction occurring 49 million years ago.

*cough*

[ghendric]

Better start holding your breath. All that carbon dioxide you're exhaling is going to over heat the earth and melt all the polar caps!! No farting either please!

Can't wait until all the plants die once they take all that CO2 and shove it down into the ground. Maybe they could shove it up Al Gore's ass...

[martin1212]

The carbon dioxide you exhale comes from the carbon you ingested as food from animals or plants which originally came from the atmosphere, so it does not add to overall CO2 levels - its a closed loop. Unless you are eating coal...

[DarkHawke]

@martin1212: You do realize you shot the whole global warming argument down just now, right? The "closed loop" applies to the ENTIRE ecosphere, which includes carbon locked up in substances like coal, oil, limestone and living creatures. So there's no such thing as "excess" CO2 levels, just *different* levels.

[martin1212]

@DarkHawke, the important factor you are missing is timescales. It is true that the entire ecosystem is a closed loop. But the carbon in fossil fuels has been locked away for millions of years, until now. So we are currently releasing that extra carbon, which is going to result in increased warming. So the fact it is overall a closed loop does not invalidate the argument that additional releases will cause additional warming. The main point is that things like breathing have no effect because the timescale over which that carbon is recycled (weeks to months) is short compared to the time it remains in the atmosphere (decades.) For fossil fuels it is the opposite, it is locked away for far longer than it will remain in the atmosphere, hence it will have a positive effect on warming.

[dbargen]

Lol. Glad to see the commenters hear are probably smarter than the management that requires this coverage.

And first step? Come on. The EPA has been drooling over this prospect ever since they figured out cafe standards weren't having the effect they wanted. Steps have been made and shoved backwards time and again. Let's hope someone can do that again before they make for some REAL economic insanity coming out of D.C.

[BtmnHatesRbn]

I call the EPA a an un-Constitutional waste of public tax dollars. Where, specifically, does the Constitution allow the EPA? Until the Constitution is amended, the EPA is nothing at all.

[biffhenerson]

A fool and his money are soon parted. There is nothing the worlds population can do to have any impact of our massive planet. Nothing. Look at a globe. Find your location. Pretend it was wiped from the planet. Would it make any difference to the environment? No. Its so tiny compared to the mass of the planet. Even bigger than the planet is the atmosphere. People are fools to think that we have any effect on anthying other than our own litter boxes. People cant see past the horizon. They think that the earth is flat. They thing that because they have garbage in their ditch that the whole planet is polluted. They think that bacause the air in the city is green, that the whole worlds air is green. These people can not see past the horizon. They suffer from the "world is flat" syndrome. Meanwhile, they all what me to empty my pocketbook to make the green air go away. Guess what, the air in my city isnt green. Nor is the air in 99.999999% of the world. So fix your own green air or move to anywhere.

[BogusBasin]

The lord hates republicans. Amen

[gggg sssss]

Lets say there are 1000 people employed by the EPA. ( I dont want to call it wirking) Let them all stop breating. And their lawers as well. That would be a good start.

And ship all the auto jobs to China while you are at it. Those car factories are huge poluters.

[gggg sssss]

And now that I think of it, what if this IS a China funded conspiracy to kill jobs in america?

[john4910j]

nice change jackasses!!!!!! NOBAMA......

[crusadex]

It simply means they are going to tax our cars,electricity,water and waste usage into oblivion.Be prepared to choose eating or living.