EPA proposes mandatory Greenhouse Gas Emissions report for automakers, big emitters
Automakers, fuel suppliers and engine builders would be among the organizations that would have to submit annual reports on their CO2 (and other greenhouse gas) emissions to the EPA, should a new proposed rule go through. In all, the 13,000 facilities that account for 85-90 percent of the GHGs emitted in the U.S. would be affected. To understand the baseline issue, here's how the EPA explains the proposed rule:
In general, EPA proposes that suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial greenhouse gases, manufacturers of vehicles and engines, and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more per year of GHG emissions submit annual reports to EPA. The gases covered by the proposed rule are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and other fluorinated gases including nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) and hydrofluorinated ethers (HFE).
The idea is to give the EPA an idea of just how much of these greenhouse gases is created in the U.S., which will make it possible to "confront climate change ... guided by the best possible information," as EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson put it. "This is a critical step toward helping us better protect our health and environment – all without placing an onerous burden on our nation's small businesses." The EPA is looking into regulating CO2 emissions for the first time ever. The rule calls for emitters to start submitting reports in 2011 for 2010 emissions. Vehicle and engine manufacturers would have to start reporting emissions for 2011 model year vehicles. The EPA proposed the rule today, and now the public has 60 days (give or take) to submit comments. I'm sure these next few months will be pretty full of opinions on this issue.
[Source: EPA]
Photo by seanmcgrath. Licensed under Creative Commons license 2.0.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
jharlan 1:58PM (3/10/2009)
Do we have a clue whaqt the unintended consequences of these new regulations would be?
Here are a couple of hypothetical questions to you guys that know everything.
1. If our 300 million people used horses instead of cars for transportation would we have less or more GHG?
2. If we used draft animals instead of tractors and trucks and trains to haul goods and for farming to feed our 300 million people, would there be less or more GHG?
3. Do you think 300 million people could even survive without modern transportation?
4. Is the problem GHG emissions or overpopulation?
5. If we decide the problem is overpopulation, what do we propose to alleviate it.
I don't have the answers, but it might be interesting to know. I'll bet some of our readers do know the answer.
Reply
paulwesterberg 4:09PM (3/10/2009)
100 years ago when we had very few cars we used trains and boats to transport most freight. 100 years ago you could take a train from chicago to minneapolis in 5 hours traveling at 80 mph.
That train track has since been ripped up and is now a bike path.
It now takes 7-8 hours to drive from chicago to minneapolis.
Europe has high speed electric rail that quickly and efficiently transport people and freight while our transportation system is worse than the system we had 100 years ago.
oldraven 4:32PM (3/10/2009)
If it is overpopulation, the obvious solution is to find a second planet.
BlackbirdHighway 8:18PM (3/10/2009)
Your hypothetical question is stupid because people are not going back to using horses for transportation. So who cares?
There are certainly plenty of ways to lower CO2 emissions that don't involve population reduction or giving up technology. Have you ever heard of solar power? Wind power? Nuclear power? Hydroelectric power? Geothermal power? Nuclear fusion? Tides? Energy conservation? Urban clustering? Bio-fuels?
All of those things can help, and none of them require reduced populations or giving up technology.
I'll resist the urge to repeat what Mr. Garrison says about stupid questions.
jharlan 9:38PM (3/10/2009)
Blackbird hiway:
What you indicate for solutions are valid, but outside of wind and solar, not much progress is being made. Hydro electric has reached it's capacity because pseudo-environmentalist, anti business forces file lawsuits to prevent any new hydro projects, making them too expensive to develop. Fusion is a future technology.. Fission is now, but anti business forces oppose it at every turn, forcing us to use coal. Biofuels help our country's trade balance but don't effect GHG much. Tidal energy and geothermal are available, but very expensive to develop.You were quick to criticize me, but in fact what you offered is nothing.Vague generalizations not leading to any affirmative actions. Ttalk is cheap, and talk is what we get from you. Stupid answers.
stas peterson 1:39AM (3/11/2009)
The eco loons put into office by the Clueless One are determined to impose CO2 rationing on everyone. The more AGW becomes a disproven hypothesis, they more they feel the urgency to act.
Once the principle is established, everyone will pay and conform.
I could actually look forward to regulating the hot air from "liberal", er "progressive", er "marxist" politicians. They easily emit the GREAT MAJORITY of the hot air. Since the EPA loons, want to reduce CO2 emisions by 60%, I wonder what 16 hours a day can they cease to breathe.
I heartedly endorse such a "progressive approach", as denying the Cluelss One the ability to breathe for 16 hours a day. I recommend that it be his waking hours.as the hot air is much more prolific then...
Reply
oldraven 8:54AM (3/11/2009)
Give this man a cookie. "..pay and conform." That's AGW in a nutshell. Especially the pay part. It's a cash grab disguised as carbon taxes and carbon credits (Gore's personal currency). This has recently shown itself by Gore's Carbon Credit company denouncing the introduction of Carbon Taxes in lieu of Carbon Credits. If he really felt a threat from carbon, and gave a shit, he would be siding with the tax, which penalises corporations for excessive GHG emissions, rather than defer the bad press by getting some random guy in another country to plant a bloody tree for them. "You can keep on polluting as much as you want, so long as I get paid."