COURT ORDERED: On July 11, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released its proposed regulations for controlling greenhouse gas emissions. Just a few days later the EPA's Office of Research and Development released an unrelated report outlining global climate change's potential effects on health, cities and Americans' overall wellbeing.

The first EPA document, "Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act" comes in response to the Supreme Court case Massachusetts v. EPA in April 2007. In that ruling, the Court decided that under the Clean Air Act, the EPA has the authority to regulate vehicle emissions if it finds they may endanger the public. The Court did not require the EPA regulate new automobile emissions, but it must show that whatever it does complies with the Clean Air Act. The other report, "Analyses of the effects of global change on human health and welfare and human systems," looked at global warming research and concluded that rising temperatures will cause health and economic problems for Americans.

Using the Clean Air Act to Regulate Tailpipe Emissions

The EPA said in March that it would not regulate carbon dioxide without gathering information from the public first about various options and their consequences.

Instead it has written a detailed document on how the agency will control carbon dioxide:

• require significant improvements in fuel economy for cars and trucks
• require improved fuel efficiency for ocean-going vessels, aircraft and many other types of non-road engines (locomotives, construction equipment, lawn mowers, etc.)
• require new emissions control over stationary sources, such as buildings, including those not previously under the EPA's oversight
• write new standards to include greenhouse gases for installations meeting current EPA standards, such as refineries and electricity plants

The suggested new regulations will...

• extend significantly the EPA's control
• cost small businesses prohibitive amounts of money

The EPA recognizes these results and suggests that it "does not believe that all aspects of the [Clean Air] Act are well designed for establishing the kind of comprehensive GHG [greenhouse gas] regulatory program that could most efficiently achieve the GHG emission reductions that may be needed over the next several decades." (Environmental Protection Agency, 7/11/08)

The public has 120 days to respond to the advance notice.

CCSP Report Says More Greenhouse Gas Means More Sick People, Less Fresh Water

The U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) coordinates climate change research from 13 federal agencies. It commissioned the recent "Analyses of the Effects of Global Change on Human Health and Welfare and Human Systems" report.

Twenty-eight academic, government and private sector experts analyzed the latest research on global climate change and how it may affect people. They also made suggestions for how the government might tackle global warming.

While this scientific report is not coupled to the EPA proposed regulations, it does inform government policy without requiring any particular regulatory action.

The report predicts that increased temperatures might cause the following changes, resulting in these effects in the United States:

The report says, "The challenges presented by population growth, an aging population, migration patterns, and urban and coastal development will be affected by changes in temperature, precipitation, and extreme climate-related events." (U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, 7/08)

Report Won't Change Widespread Disagreement over Global Warming Causes

Although evidence makes it clear that the climate is getting warmer, critics say that ...

• the earth has experienced major climate changes throughout its history
• there is no scientific evidence that this swing is any greater than past swings
• proof is inconclusive that humanity is the cause of the warming

In particular, critics warn that the Clean Air Act may not be the best tool for managing greenhouse gases in the United States.

Industry representatives say that the link to human-made greenhouse gas emissions is weak. Scott Segal, director of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, a coalition of power companies, said "The question is not a scientific one. It is a legal and political question, of how much impact justifies the extraordinary use of the Clean Air Act." (Associated Press, 7/15/08)

Copyright © 2010 Informify

Question for Readers:

Do you agree with Al Gore that the United States' reliance on carbon-based fuels has hurt the economy, environment and national security?