U.S. Environmental Protection Agency declares CO2 endanger human health

[Syt]

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B63GA20091207

U.S. greenhouse gas ruling sends message to world


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration's greenhouse gas ruling Monday was meant to send a warning to industry, the U.S. Congress, and the world: with or without a law, Washington will tackle global warming in a serious way.

The Environmental Protection Agency issued a final ruling that greenhouse gases endanger human health, allowing it to put limits on emissions even if U.S. lawmakers fail to pass a law to achieve the same objective.

These are the ramifications of the long-expected decision:

* Timing: as the EPA made its announcement, negotiators from nearly 200 countries met in Copenhagen to work toward a political agreement to address climate change.

The timing was no coincidence: the EPA announcement was aimed at an international audience as much as a domestic one.

The U.S. position at the talks is undermined by not having a domestic law in place to curb emissions, but the EPA ruling should reassure other nations that Washington will force businesses to reduce their greenhouse gas pollution one way or another.

Obama's message to world leaders: the United States is a serious partner in Copenhagen and on the climate change issue as a whole.

* Pressure: The House of Representatives has passed a bill that would cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions but the Senate has not. As lawmakers go back and forth on whether such rules would be good or bad for industry and the country, the EPA ruling will now be firmly in the back of their minds.

Obama's message to lawmakers: hurry up and agree on a law, or the administration will take the reins and accomplish this goal without you.

* Risk: Though the White House has given the green light to the EPA finding, officials near Obama would prefer not to talk about it that much. Why? The president still firmly prefers a legislative solution to the problem of regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions.

By making the threat that regulation will result if a law fails, Obama risks having to actually follow through.

Politically it will be more palatable for the president to tell Americans -- especially in coal-producing states that will be hard hit by emissions curbs -- that rules governing climate change were approved by their elected representatives rather than imposed by the executive branch.

If the economy does not recover soon, the short-term costs to industry of regulation could create long-term costs for Obama, whose fellow Democrats could lose seats in Congress.

Practically, EPA regulation could also get tied up in a series of legal challenges from businesses and environmental groups. A law would be less messy and potentially more efficient at cutting emissions quickly.

* Certainty: Companies often say certainty is crucial for business planning. Even those that are opposed to climate legislation or EPA regulation -- and there are many -- would prefer knowing what's coming to not knowing, even if the ramifications are costly.

With the EPA's announcement, pending legislation in Congress, and the U.S. position in Copenhagen all spelled out, industry can now assume that, one way or another, the United States will aim to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions roughly 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020.

For those that have not already started, making investments to cut industrial emissions and reduce carbon pollution would make sense ... now.

[Tamas]

Sure, hold back our economies while China and India just piss on the whole issue and outgrow us

What is funny is that they will encourage the transfer of even the remaining industries in the developed world, which will not only raise the CO2 output of the industries of the third world, but also make regular Chinese/Indians richer. And when they will afford to live like Europeans, we WILL have CO2 problems.

[Faeelin]

Interesting. I'd have assumed that an EPA decision to comply with a Supreme Court ruling would be less politically damaging for the Democrats than passing climate change legislation.

[Neil]

Well, if I owned an industrial concern in the US, I'd be getting out of the US while the getting is good.  Still, it is interesting seeing Obama actually attempt to accomplish something.

[Valmy]

[DGuller]

Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy.  I bet that tens of millions of conservatives in US have started hyperventilating this morning.

[derspiess]

Veddy interesting.

[The Larch]

Sure, hold back our economies while China and India just piss on the whole issue and outgrow us

What is funny is that they will encourage the transfer of even the remaining industries in the developed world, which will not only raise the CO2 output of the industries of the third world, but also make regular Chinese/Indians richer. And when they will afford to live like Europeans, we WILL have CO2 problems.

Both China and India agreed to set limits to their CO2 output in the weeks prior to the Copenhaghen summit.

[Admiral Yi]

Both China and India agreed to set limits to their CO2 output in the weeks prior to the Copenhaghen summit.

No kidding?

Did they say what the limits would be, or did they just agree to set them?

[The Larch]

Both China and India agreed to set limits to their CO2 output in the weeks prior to the Copenhaghen summit.

No kidding?

Did they say what the limits would be, or did they just agree to set them?

Everything I read quoted objectives and put numbers to it. IIRC, they also conditioned them on the US doing so as well. I'd have to check for the reports to be more precise.

[JacobL]

They said they would have per-capita limits iirc which means they can pollute more so long as their economy grows faster then the rate of pollution.

[Faeelin]

They said they would have per-capita limits iirc which means they can pollute more so long as their economy grows faster then the rate of pollution.

Monstrous. The environment demands that Indians remain poor forever.

[alfred russel]

They said they would have per-capita limits iirc which means they can pollute more so long as their economy grows faster then the rate of pollution.

Monstrous. The environment demands that Indians remain poor forever.

Not the indians specifically, but someone. If the Chinese and Indians won't stay in the role, we need to find 2 billion replacements.

[MadImmortalMan]

They said they would have per-capita limits iirc which means they can pollute more so long as their economy grows faster then the rate of pollution.

Monstrous. The environment demands that Indians remain poor forever.

Not the indians specifically, but someone. If the Chinese and Indians stay in the role, we need to find 2 billion replacements.

California appears to be volunteering. That's fifty million down.

[Fate]

China and India are not terribly relevant at the moment. When the time comes we'll have the option of bombing them into compliance.