EPA set for a momentous ruling on global warming

EPA set for a momentous ruling on global warming
Nearly two years after a Supreme Court directive, the new head of the agency is poised to issue far-reaching regulations on the emissions of carbon dioxide.
By JOHN M. BRODER, New York Times
Last update: February 18, 2009 - 9:17 PM
Featured comment
"If the EPA determines that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant to be regulated under the Clean Air Act..."
...the government will start charging us a fee to breathe. Close comment

WASHINGTON - The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 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 Obama administration officials.
The decision, which most likely would play out in stages over a period of months, would have a profound impact on transportation, manufacturing costs and how utilities generate power. It could accelerate the progress of energy and climate-change legislation in Congress and form a basis for the United States' negotiating position at U.N. climate talks set for December in Denmark.
The EPA is under order from the Supreme Court to determine whether carbon dioxide is a pollutant that endangers public health, an order that the Bush administration essentially ignored despite near-unanimous belief among EPA experts that research points to such a finding.
Lisa Jackson, the new EPA 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. Jackson said she had not decided to issue such a finding, but she pointedly noted that the second anniversary of the Supreme Court decision, Massachusetts vs. EPA, is April 2, and there is a wide expectation that she will act by then.
"We here know how momentous that decision could be," Jackson said. "We have to lay out a road map."
She took a first step on Tuesday when she said that the EPA would reconsider a Bush administration decision not to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from new coal-burning power plants. In announcing the reversal, Jackson suggested that the EPA was considering additional measures to regulate heat-trapping gases
The White House signaled that it fully supported Jackson's approach, deferring to her to discuss the administration's response to the Supreme Court case. Ben LaBolt, a White House spokesman, also pointed to statements on the subject during the presidential campaign by Heather Zichal, a top adviser on environmental and energy issues.
Zichal, who is now deputy to Carol Browner, the White House coordinator for climate and energy policy, said last fall that the Bush White House had prevented the EPA from making the endangerment finding "consistent with its obligations under the recent Supreme Court decision." She also said that while President Obama supported congressional action on climate change, he also was committed to using the regulatory authority of the executive branch to reduce emissions that contribute to global warming.
If the EPA 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. 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 those worries.
"We are poised to be specific on what we regulate and on what schedule," Jackson said. "We don't want people to spin that into a doomsday scenario."
Even some who favor an aggressive approach to climate change said they were wary of the agency's asserting exclusive authority over carbon emissions. They say that the Clean Air Act, now more than 40 years old, was not designed to regulate ubiquitous substances like carbon dioxide. They also believe that a broader approach that addresses all sectors of the economy and that is fully debated in Congress would be better than a regulatory approach that could drag through the courts for years.

Continue to next page

Comment on this story Read all 4 comments Hide reader comments
registerCommentToggle($("commentsControl"));

Register or log in to comment
if(GetCookie('startribune_user_auth')) {
//$("adCommentLoggedIn").style.display = "block";
}else{
$("mainAddCommentLoggedOut").style.display = "block";
}

Comments are subject to the site's terms of use and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or approval of the Star Tribune. Readers whose comments violate the terms of use may have their comments removed or all of their content blocked from viewing by other users without notification.
"If the EPA determines that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant to be regulated under the Clean Air Act..."
...the government will start charging us a fee to breathe.
posted by RipAnderson on Feb 18, 09 at 9:43 pm
5 of 7 people liked this comment. Do you?
God help us!
We'll all be paying higher prices based on an unproven theory. This article admits as much: "despite near-unanimous belief among EPA experts that research points to such a finding." Research doesn't PROVE it; it just points to it. And the article fails to mention the thousands of expert climatologists who DON'T believe humans can reduce global warming. Great! Let's all keep our wallets wide open, because the "great taxpayer robbery" by our new federal government has only just begun.
posted by erintw on Feb 18, 09 at 10:35 pm
3 of 4 people liked this comment. Do you?
Global Warming
I am begining to doubt that GLOBAL WARMING is caused by humans, automobiles, trucks, power plants or manufacturing plants.
posted by noink on Feb 18, 09 at 10:40 pm
3 of 4 people liked this comment. Do you?
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 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 Obama administration officials.
Barry and his administration, Congressional democrats and global warming advocates can help this by not exhaling CO2, then the rest of us would not have to worry.
posted by her401 on Feb 18, 09 at 10:41 pm
2 of 3 people liked this comment. Do you?
Read all 4 comments Hide reader comments
registerCommentToggle($("commentsControlb"));