Paradigm Shift – EPA Says CO2 is Bad for the Environment

1. Proposed Endangerment Finding – “the current and projected concentrations of the mix of six key greenhouse gases-carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)-in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations”
2. Proposed Cause or Contribute Finding – “the combined emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O, and HFCs from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines contribute to the atmospheric concentrations of these key greenhouse gases and hence to the threat of climate change.”

 The Proposed Findings will be published in the Federal Register and available in the Docket (www.regulations.gov) under Docket ID No. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171].  Before becoming final, there is a 60 day period for public comment, beginning after the date published in the Federal Register.  Further information on the Findings may be found from the EPA website (http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html).

 It would seem that the scope of the “proposed endangerment finding” is greater that was anticipated by the original 2007 Supreme Court ruling that initiated the process.  While the findings do not in and of themselves initiate any automatic rules, and the establishment of formal rules to implement the findings could be years away, its impact could be considered revolutionary.  The Wall Street Journal notes “Unless superseded by congressional action, the EPA ruling eventually could lead to stricter emissions limits.  Business that stands to be affected range from power plants and oil refineries to car makers and cement producers.  <ref> Weisman, Jonathan and Siobhan Hughes. “US In Historic Shift on CO2″ The Wall Street Journal, April 18-19, 2009 p-1.</ref>

 It should be noted that CO2 is not in-and-of-itself declared to be a pollutant. Rather its increase is said to be problematic to the “public health and general welfare of current and future generations.”  Research suggests that the greenhouse gasses described above tend to have an insulating effect in the atmosphere; the greater the greenhouse gas, the more heat is trapped.  The EPA endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which concluded that natural variations such as solar activity could not explain raising average temperatures.  <ref> Johnson, Keith “How carbon Dioxide Became a Pollutant’” The Wall Street Journal, April 18-19, 2009 p-4</ref>

 It is anticipated that there will be increased interest in Emissions Trading, also known as Cap & Trade, as a result of this EPA ruling.   In addition to the automotive industry, this ruling has the potential of impacting the way buildings are operated (air conditioning and heating buildings can account for up to 50% of the cost of a building’s operation), the way we manufacture goods, they way we travel, and the way we grow food.  

The EPA suggests that the implementation of future rules will lead to increased employment.  The real question that should be asked is a bit more complex and is how the potential rules will impact productivity, i.e. will the new rules lead to a more efficient delivery of goods and services.  

Since cows are a major producer of CO2, will the EPA start regulating feed lots?  Since humans are a major producer of CO2, will the EPA start regulating population growth? 

 [i] US CODE, Clean Air Act, Title II – Emission Standards for Moving Sources  http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/title2.html

[ii] Environmental Protection Agency publication “Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act” http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html