http://www.usatoday.com/money/industrie ... 8_ST_N.htm



By Julie Schmit, USA TODAY
The latest step by the government to regulate carbon dioxide emissions saddles industry with uncertainty and potentially higher costs, industry groups said Monday after the Environmental Protection Agency declared carbon dioxide a health hazard.
The EPA's decision paves the way for new regulations on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and factories even if Congress doesn't pass legislation to do so.


EPA RULING: Regulation of greenhouse gases approved

If nothing changes, the EPA, sometime next year, could require big carbon emitters – such as power plants, steel mills, cement makers and others – to put the best available equipment on new and modified plants to curb emissions.

Industry groups say EPA regulation would eventually drive up energy costs, lead to lost jobs and delays in project permits and construction. More immediately, "This adds more uncertainty and could impact how companies make decisions," says Keith McCoy, vice president of the National Association of Manufacturers.

Instead of EPA regulation, industry wants Congress to pass climate change legislation to limit carbon emissions – a stance also taken by the EPA and the White House. Such efforts are underway in the House and Senate.

That way, emission cuts could be made more strategically and "soften the impact on consumers," says Dan Riedinger of the Edison Electric Institute, a power industry trade group. He says energy costs will "go up more under EPA regulation."

As a result of EPA regulation, U.S. companies could also face higher operating costs than foreign competitors, says Larry Kavanagh of the American Iron and Steel Institute. The institute wants legislation crafted to help U.S. companies stay competitive – while still cutting emissions – via trade measures, rebates and other incentives.

Congress could override EPA's regulations or retain them.

Either way, the "train is moving down the tracks" to regulate emissions, says David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council, an advocacy group. He says that's key "to rebuilding the economy along clean-energy lines."

The EPA's decision is expected to face legal challenges. Shortly after the announcement, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a public interest group, said it would file a lawsuit to overturn the EPA's finding on the grounds that EPA ignored scientific issues around global climate modeling.

The carbon dioxide decision comes seven months after the Obama administration set national rules to improve auto fuel efficiency nearly 40% by 2016, which would reduce tailpipe emissions. Given a Supreme Court ruling, the EPA's finding on carbon dioxide is needed before it can regulate carbon dioxide emissions from autos, factories and power plants.

I'm a little worried that they left water vapor off the list

in other news, oxygen helps people breath

Yeah, I really don't like that wording either.

Hey, anything to make China even more competitive, right?

Yeah, we can't let China win the race to kill the most of their people through industrial pollution.

AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!!!

are people dying in america thanks to pollution?

of course. thousands of premature deaths occur every year because of smog and air pollution.

premature babies? or people die 2 months before they would have otherwise because of smog? or something else?

a canadian example but would be pretty standard across the US i imagine.

http://www.oma.org/Media/news/pr080606a.asp

"Toronto, June 6, 2008 – New data released today by the Ontario Medical Association (OMA) shows that air pollution is a contributing factor in almost 9,500 premature deaths per year in Ontario. The report comes as Ontario enters into the summer season and smog days are expected. Doctors are urging people to take the proper precautions when air quality is poor.

The OMA’s recently updated Illness Costs of Air Pollution (ICAP) model found that of the 9,500 premature deaths, more than 1,000 occurred during or immediately after periods of increased pollution. The remaining number can be attributed to long-term, lifetime exposure to air pollutants. The ICAP model uses air pollution, illness and demographic information to estimate smog-related health effects.

“The numbers reinforce the fact that the problem of smog is not confined to cities and industrial centres,” said Dr. Arnold. “A staggering number of premature deaths attributed to pollution were found across Ontario, showing that less-urban areas can be equally, and sometimes even more affected by smog than larger cities.”"

that number's cool and all, but how premature?

i would gladly sacrifice my 93rd year for cheap, plentiful energy, without excessive smog that would bother me daily. the utility gained from cheap, plentiful energy is pretty high.

I would too, but others don't like being forced to give up their last couple years.

Folks, we're talking carbon dioxide here, not air pollution in general.

this seems to be a problem with living in a society. and i'm not calling the claims invalid by saying that either, but society strips away a lot of freedom, while at the same time giving many more opportunities (freedom to pursue certain objectives that don't exist outside of it).

Oh, so you don't support cap-and-trade legislation Senator []? No bother, the EPA will just circumvent the legislative process entirely and force your homestate industries to agree to caps, no matter the costs.

And that exception for those that emit less than 25,000 tons of carbon per year? Sure, that leads to a big hypocrisy in the Administration's position, but at least that number wasn't arbitrary and will in no way lead to lawsuit after lawsuit regarding the EPA's authority to do what it's done.

And finally, the timing of this announcement right as the conference in Copenhagen is getting under way was purely coincidental -- nothing calculated on the EPA's part.

Need moar FUD.

Fucktwits
We're talking about CO2 here.

apparently man in black can't comprehend a thread taking a different direction.

Well, I agreed with him that the direction wasn't really appropriate.

Isn't a stretch to call carbon dioxide a "health hazard" as opposed to the very real threats of common air pollutants?

Even though every breath contains CO2, if the percentage of CO2 is too high, it is most certainly a health hazard. More to the point, excess CO2 in the atmosphere (caused by human industry and destruction of forests) is strongly linked to global warming, which is a health hazard to all living things on earth.