EPA: Greenhouse gases are harmful to humans

[rockdawg21]

Great, now we are being regulated by our government thanks to the Liberal media and crackpot scientists.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34311724...ws-environment

EPA: Greenhouse gases are harmful to humans
Announcement comes as Obama prepares to attend climate conference


David McNew / Getty Images file

The Obama administration has announced that rather than wait for
Congress to act, it has authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to
move forward on enacting new regulations on greenhouse gas emissions
emitted from hundreds of power plants and large industrial facilities.


updated 1 hour, 3 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Environmental Protection Agency took a major step Monday toward regulating greenhouses gases, concluding that climate changing pollution threatens the public health and the environment.

The announcement came as the Obama administration looked to boost its arguments at an international climate conference that the United States is aggressively taking actions to combat global warming, even though Congress has yet to act on climate legislation. The conference opened Monday in Copenhagen.

The EPA said that the scientific evidence surrounding climate change clearly shows that greenhouse gases "threaten the public health and welfare of the American people" and that the pollutants — mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels — should be regulated under the Clean Air Act.

"These long-overdue findings cement 2009's place in history as the year when the United States government began addressing the challenge of greenhouse-gas pollution," said EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson at news conference.

The action by the EPA, which has been anticipated for months, clearly was timed to add to the momentum toward some sort of agreement on climate change at the Copenhagen conference and try to push Congress to approve climate legislation.

"This is a clear message to Copenhagen of the Obama administration's commitments to address global climate change," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., lead author of a climate bill before the Senate. "The message to Congress is crystal clear: get moving."

Obama planned to talk with former Vice President Al Gore at the White House on Monday as the president prepares for his appearance on Dec. 18 at the climate summit in Copenhagen. Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for his work toward combating climate change.

Obama is also meeting on Wednesday with environmental leaders and U.S. business leaders to discuss climate change.

Under a Supreme Court ruling, the finding of endangerment is needed before the EPA can regulate carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases released from power plants, factories and automobiles under the federal Clean Air Act.

The EPA signaled last April that it was inclined to view heat-trapping pollution as a threat to public health and welfare and began to take public comments under a formal rulemaking. The action marked a reversal from the Bush administration, which had declined to aggressively pursue the issue.

Business groups have strongly argued against tackling global warming through the Clean Air Act, saying it is less flexible and more costly than the cap-and-trade bill being considered before Congress. On Monday, some of those groups questioned the timing of the EPA's announcement, calling it political.

"The implications of today's action by EPA are far-reaching ... individual Americans and consumers and businesses alike will be dramatically affected by this decision," said Charles T. Drevna, the president of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association. Drevna, in a statement, said "it is hardly the time to risk the remainder of the U.S. industrial sector in an attempt to achieve a short-term international public relations victory."

Waiting for Congress to act
Any regulations are also likely to spawn lawsuits and lengthy legal fights.

The EPA and the White House have said regulations on greenhouse gases will not be imminent even after an endangerment finding, saying that the administration would prefer that Congress act to limit such pollution through an economy-wide cap on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Nevertheless, the EPA has begun the early stages of developing permit requirements on carbon dioxide pollution from large emitters such as power plants. The administration also has said it will require automobile fuel economy to increase to a fleet average of 35 miles per gallon by 2016, another push to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

The EPA's readiness to tackle climate change is expected to give a boost to U.S. arguments at the climate conference opening in Copenhagen this week that the United States is making broad commitments to reduce greenhouse gases.

While the House has approved climate legislation that would cut emissions by 17 percent by 2020 and about 80 percent by mid-century, the Senate has yet to take up the measure amid strong Republican opposition and reluctance by some centrist Democrats.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., lead author of the Senate bill, has argued that if Congress doesn't act, the EPA will require greenhouse gas emissions. He has called EPA regulation a "blunt instrument" that would pose a bigger problem for industry than legislation crafted to mitigate some of the costs of shifting away from carbon emitting fossil fuels.

The way was opened for the EPA to use the Clean Air Act to cut climate-changing emissions by the Supreme Court in 2007, when the court declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Act. But the court said the EPA must determine if these pollutants pose a danger to public health and welfare before it can regulate them.

© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
Sulphur Dioxide (SO2)
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

Which of the above 3 greenhouse gasses do you consider to be safe at any level?

What non-crackpost source can you use as proof to show that the above 3 gasses are safe for humans at all levels as well as the particulate matter that is emitted by these power plants?

Do you think that there should be any regulations in place in regards to what pollutants and the quantities emitted by power plants and such?

I remember about 5-6 years back traveling to Pensacola FL to visit a friend and drove through Alabama and Florida in the dark when I got there. When I left to drive home, I drove through those areas again in the daylight and was surprised by what I saw. I drove by what I believe was a paper plant and couldn't believe my eyes. The steam that was emitted seemed to cover the entire area along with small particulate matter and an awful smell. Perhaps some of what was covering the ground was frost, but it wasn't only frost I don't believe. I could never live in an area like that.

i don't know how people can't believe that we are killing our planet ... just look at the amount of pollutants we release into the environment ... do i think the poles are going to melt tomorrow? no, but if we keep polluting the planet, we are going to for future generations ...

[Neezar]

Originally Posted by Buzzard

Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
Sulphur Dioxide (SO2)
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

Which of the above 3 greenhouse gasses do you consider to be safe at any level?

What non-crackpost source can you use as proof to show that the above 3 gasses are safe for humans at all levels as well as the particulate matter that is emitted by these power plants?

The EPA was told 2 years ago that if they could prove that these actually endangered humans then they could regulate it. If they can't prove it harmful to us then who can?

Their only argument: The climate change proves it is harmful.

That's it? The government wants more proof and frankly, so do I.

Originally Posted by Neezar

The EPA was told 2 years ago that if they could prove that these actually endangered humans then they could regulate it. If they can't prove it harmful to us then who can?

Their only argument: The climate change proves it is harmful.

That's it? The government wants more proof and frankly, so do I.

There is much information out there regarding the safe levels of those 3 gases. Too much of either of them can be unhealthy. There are OSHA standards also in regard to workplace safety and the safe levels of those gases for worker exposure.

The information is already out there. Your statement that the governments only argument is that "The climate change proves it is harmful" is quite a stretch.

[Neezar]

Originally Posted by Buzzard

There is much information out there regarding the safe levels of those 3 gases. Too much of either of them can be unhealthy. There are OSHA standards also in regard to workplace safety and the safe levels of those gases for worker exposure.

The information is already out there. Your statement that the governments only argument is that "The climate change proves it is harmful" is quite a stretch.

I got my information from the article.

The way was opened for the EPA to use the Clean Air Act to cut climate-changing emissions by the Supreme Court in 2007, when the court declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Act. But the court said the EPA must determine if these pollutants pose a danger to public health and welfare before it can regulate them.

Sounds like the below is what was proposed by the EPA -

The EPA said that the scientific evidence surrounding climate change clearly shows that greenhouse gases "threaten the public health and welfare of the American people" and that the pollutants — mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels — should be regulated under the Clean Air Act.

However, the Supreme Court is still not agreeing to regulate it yet. Their response

Under a Supreme Court ruling, the finding of endangerment is needed before the EPA can regulate carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases released from power plants, factories and automobiles under the federal Clean Air Act.

So if the EPA submitted something else then the writer of this article did a gross injustice to the topic by omitting it.

[rockdawg21]

In what way has any scientist PROVEN greenhouse gases are causing "global warming"? Saying the temperature of the Earth has increased by a whopping 1.2 degrees Celcius in 70 years is NOT PROOF of anything.

Originally Posted by Buzzard

Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
Sulphur Dioxide (SO2)
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

Which of the above 3 greenhouse gasses do you consider to be safe at any level?

What non-crackpost source can you use as proof to show that the above 3 gasses are safe for humans at all levels as well as the particulate matter that is emitted by these power plants?

Obviously, those compounds are NOT harming humans in all levels because they are a part of the air we breathe EVERY DAY. As for your question, which of the 3 are safe at "any level?" Well, CO2 and NO2 are part of the NATURAL composition of dry atmosphere, therefore, they are safe because we breathe it every day - it's not as if people are dying off in massive numbers due to "air pollution". As for S02, show me PROOF not THEORY it is destroying our planet and then you and the crackpot scientists MIGHT have a real argument.

I would rather the EPA be the law enforcers than law makers! As much as I dislike most politicians the law is suppose to be made by elected officials like congress,the House and Senate who in theory at least answer to the people. On these pollution laws you can go way to far in either direction and this Global Warming stuff has turned into almost a Religion of its own! In fact I have been tempted to classify it as occult like cause of how aggressive,dishonest and harmful some folk's in the movement are!

I would like to see some environmental clean up going on. I feel like certain areas of this country and the world are just completely disrespected and polluted beyond rhyme or reason.

Stuff leaking int othe groundwater and what not.

The economy is fragil right now and we have to be careful.

It's hard to stay in the middle and not be sucked in the corporate douche bags and the liberal NAzis on two sides of the spectrum.

[rockdawg21]

Originally Posted by Crisco

I would like to see some environmental clean up going on. I feel like certain areas of this country and the world are just completely disrespected and polluted beyond rhyme or reason.

Stuff leaking int othe groundwater and what not.

The economy is fragil right now and we have to be careful.

It's hard to stay in the middle and not be sucked in the corporate douche bags and the liberal NAzis on two sides of the spectrum.

I agree, it's a natural progression to make changes to renewable energy, but the degree to which the media and crackpot scientists claim about the effects on the environment are just ridiculous. Next thing you know, they're going to tell us in Mayan scripture, it reads that the humans kill themselves in 2012 due to inert gases harming our atmosphere so we should do something drastic right now, like bankrupt ourselves to China.