Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleSun editorial:
Dealing with climate change
The only question about regulation is whether it will be done by the EPA or Congress
Friday, Sept. 4, 2009 | 2:05 a.m.
It seems inevitable that carbon dioxide emissions will be regulated, either under a law passed by Congress or under the authority the U.S. Supreme Court granted to the Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said Monday her agency will soon label carbon dioxide as a dangerous pollutant.
Carbon dioxide is a leading greenhouse gas emitted when fossil fuels are burned to power automobiles oil refineries, coal-fired electricity plants and the like.
Jackson said the EPA’s formal “endangerment finding” regarding carbon dioxide will be declared within the next few months.
The Supreme Court in 2007 ruled that greenhouse gases can be regulated under the Clean Air Act and that the EPA “can avoid promulgating regulations only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change.”
As scientific evidence is overwhelming that carbon dioxide contributes to climate change, the EPA has no choice but to write regulations governing emissions — unless Congress acts first.
Jackson has made it clear that she would like to see Congress pass a climate change bill that would contain measures for regulating greenhouse gases. The House in June narrowly passed a bill containing mandates for significantly reducing emissions by 2020.
Passage in the Senate, however, is far from certain. Republicans there are strongly opposing a climate change bill on the grounds that a hotter, more environmentally dangerous Earth is preferable to requiring industries to spend some money on reducing life-threatening emissions.
But Jackson has said she will move on this issue even if Congress does not. She was quoted by Hearst Newspapers as saying, “Two years is a long time for this country to wait for us to respond to the Supreme Court’s ruling. And we will continue to move (toward direct regulation) until at least at some point legislation (passes).”
Senate Republicans and Democrats from industrial states should be willing to take up the House bill so their concerns can be evaluated. Otherwise, they won’t have much of a voice once the EPA starts drafting the regulations.
Discussion: comments so far…
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
No trusted comments have been posted.
Post a comment
Most Popular
- Viewed
- Discussed
- E-mailed
- Photos: Olivia Culpo, 20, of Rhode Island is crowned 2012 Miss USA at Planet Hollywood
- US Navy hopes stealth ship answers a rising China
- Photos: Derek Hough celebrates 27th birthday at Tabu Ultra Lounge
- Learning about Electric Daisy Carnival fans will help Las Vegas court them
- On the horizon: A quick look at projects poised to shape downtown
Everything Under the Sun
Blogs
The Kats Report
Joe Pesci remembers his own honeymoon in Vegas -- meeting the Rat Pack
Las Vegas Philharmonic says search for new music director to begin 'immediately' (1 Comment)
With Shenandoah project stalled, Wayne Newton hits back legally (7 Comments)
Where does a Playmate play when she turns 21? Vegas! (3 Comments)
Ice Ice Billy
The road to six-toed cats and Mayor Bubba
The Kats Report
David Itkin tells L.V. Philharmonic officials he's on his way out (14 Comments)
Diamond Dave sells it well as Van Halen pours out the power at MGM Grand (2 Comments)
- Locally owned and independent since 1950; Winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service, best news website in the nation & DuPont Award for broadcast journalism
Rarely, if ever has the scientific establishment seen a gravy train the likes of global warming, reports Christopher Horner, "The money flowing into studying the issue is jaw-dropping: federal taxpayer expenditures on climate-related research for the entire panoply of related inquiry is now pushing up against $6 billion per year, more than taxpayers send to the National Cancer Institute and even more than our government spends on AIDS."(1)
Since 1989 the US government has spent over $79 billion on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, education campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks. As Joanne Nova notes, "The large expenditure in search of a connection between carbon and climate creates enormous momentum and a powerful set of vested interests. By pouring so much money into a question have we inadvertently created a self-fulfilling prophesy instead of an unbiased investigation?" (2)
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/storyPrint...
What a shame that the sources used in the story rusty57 linked to are not credible.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?tit...
http://www.desmogblog.com/debunking-joan...
The other three people also have, or in the case of Mr. Chrichton had, no qualified background on climate science, publish no credible research, and get basic facts wrong.
If someone wants real solid evidence of the grave problem AGW presents please start here:
http://www.realclimate.org
Just another government scam. If they can't find something legitimate to tax, they'll take what they can get.
These liberals in Washington belong in prison.
udde, you been talking to your septic tank lately?
realclimate.org a "credible source"? Environmental idealogues promoting junk science. Do you dispute the 79 billion spent? This dwarfs you're Exon-Mobil bogeymen.
"RealClimate.org is assumed by those who do not know any better to be an "objective" source on climate change. It features activist scientists with degrees in Geology, Geosciences, Mathematics, Oceanography and Physics who are all self proclaimed "climatologists". Yet skeptical scientists with equivalent credentials are not (probably because they have not proclaimed it). Essentially the site exists to promote global warming alarm-ism and attack anyone who does not agree with their declaration of doomsday (proven of course by their own computer climate models) and the need for government intervention against the life supporting, atmospheric trace gas, carbon dioxide. Standard operating procedure is to post "rebuttals" to everything they disagree with and then declare victory, making sure to censor comments challenging their position. It doesn't matter if they actual rebutted any of the science or facts just so long as they provide the existence of a criticism. This gives their fanboys "ammunition" to further promote alarmist propaganda across the Internet (and of course declare victory). Their resident propagandist William Connolley's job is to edit dissent and smear skeptical scientists on Wikipedia. In the world of global warming alarmist "science" pretending you win is apparently all that matters because in real debates they lose. The truth is that RealClimate.org is an environmentalist shill site directly connected to an eco-activist group, Environmental Media Services and Al Gore but they don't want you to know that."
"Passage in the Senate, however, is far from certain. Republicans there are strongly opposing a climate change bill on the grounds that a hotter, more environmentally dangerous Earth is preferable to requiring industries to spend some money on reducing life-threatening emissions."
Nothing bias about this editorial...
Isn't carbon dioxide produced when we exhale?
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 slowly declining with a particularly swift reduction occurring 49 million years ago. Human activities such as the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation have caused the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide to increase by about 35% since the beginning of the age of industrialization.
Looks like we have a ways to go before we turn into dinosaurs again...
rusty57,
You are obviously unable to tell the difference between credible, reliable, well educated people and cranks. Too bad for you.
mschaffer. In your post of 1:52pm change rusty57 to mschaffer. Realclimate is as bad as rusty57 says but desmogblog is the insane pit bull of the bunch.
Some indesputable facts. The amount of C02 in the air is THREE ONE HUNDRETHS OF A PERCENT. If it were 30 times higher the amount of C02 in the air would still be less than one percent. C02 is plant food. Kill off the C02 and plants die and so will we as plants turn C02 into oxygen. The climate changers equate carbon as the ultimate evil yet humans and most other life forms on this rock are carbon based. The earth receives more energy from the sun in one hour than humans consume in one year. So it's us humans and not the sun doing all this warming.
As has been pointed out, there is a lot of money to be made in the climate change business. A lot of power too. But there is another element here. So many of those espousing the new religion of climate change, and other environmental issues, are afraid of change. All you hear from these people is how it was in their past and we must get back to those golden days. The golden days of starvation, disease, and back breaking work to satisfy some ignorant fantasy that mother nature is all good, humans bad. Wake up. We aren't going back to the caves to salve your insecurities. The only constant is change.
Whoever wrote this ignorant editorial had better do some research. The science is not settled. The disasters predicted for the future are all based on mathematical computer models that are wrong more often than right. Look at how often the weathermen are wrong at predicting short term forecasts not to mention long term. These are top notch people who get it wrong because there are too many variables we don't understand. In the midwest USA any forecast more than 24 hours out cannot be relied upon as this area is said to be the toughest in the world to forecast. So if we cannot get short term forecasts right, we can now predict the future?
odeman,
I have a substance that smells like bitter almonds and comprises less than .03% of my body mass. Surely it could cause no harm to me. Right?
CO2 is only one constituent of what plants use and is not in many cases the limiting factor. Your strawman argument that some mythical person wants to "kill of the CO2" is laughable at best.
The rest of your diatribe is as confused and ignorant as the beginning.
Again for people interested in actual facts click on the friendly "start here" option at this websight:
http://www.realclimate.org
Please note that serious scientists were positing CO2 as a GHG in the mid nineteenth century. Acting on my knowledge has led to a $59 electric bill in August here in Las Vegas while staying comfortable with A/C. What was your bill odeman and, if it was lower, how can I learn from you to further reduce mine?
Hi uddeboda,
As we have lived in Las Vegas for over 30 years we have jobs and a paid off house to think about. In the real world Las Vegas is not a long term sustainable city as almost all resources are imported from elswhere. The problem is that moving away also requires resource use so we will continue to minimize our impact by starting here and doing what we can.