| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science |
| Will The Real Scientists Please Stand Up & Shout???!!!! |
| 2009-04-18 |
| EPA Finds Greenhouse Gases Pose Threat to Public Health, Welfare / Proposed Finding Comes in Response to 2007 Supreme Court Ruling Note: This is the original 'news' that the BBC completely butchered... (Washington, D.C. -- April 17, 2009) After a thorough scientific review ordered in 2007 by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a proposed finding Friday that greenhouse gases contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health or welfare. The proposed finding, which now moves to a public comment period, identified six greenhouse gases that pose a potential threat. "This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations. Fortunately, it follows President Obama's call for a low carbon economy and strong leadership in Congress on clean energy and climate legislation," said Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. "This pollution problem has a solution -- one that will create millions of green jobs and end our country's dependence on foreign oil." As the proposed endangerment finding states, "In both magnitude and probability, climate change is an enormous problem. The greenhouse gases that are responsible for it endanger public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act." EPA's proposed endangerment finding is based on rigorous, peer-reviewed scientific analysis of six gases -- Yeah...uh-huh carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride -- that have been the subject of intensive analysis by scientists around the world. The science clearly shows that concentrations of these gases are at unprecedented levels as a result of human emissions, and these high levels are very likely the cause of the increase in average temperatures and other changes in our climate. The scientific analysis also confirms that climate change impacts human health in several ways. Isn't the term 'science' becoming a bit of a non sequitor like 'journalist'??? (Though not funny at all) Findings from a recent EPA study titled "Assessment of the Impacts of Global Change on Regional U.S. Air Quality: A Synthesis of Climate Change Impacts on Ground-Level Ozone," for example, suggest that climate change may lead to higher concentrations of ground-level ozone, a harmful pollutant. Additional impacts of climate change include, but are not limited to: increased drought; more heavy downpours and flooding; more frequent and intense heat waves and wildfires; greater sea level rise; more intense storms; and harm to water resources, agriculture, wildlife and ecosystems. In proposing the finding, Administrator Jackson also took into account the disproportionate impact climate change has on the health of certain segments of the population, such as the poor, the very young, the elderly, those already in poor health, the disabled, those living alone and/or indigenous populations dependent on one or a few resources. In addition to threatening human health, the analysis finds that climate change also has serious national security implications. Consistent with this proposed finding, in 2007, 11 retired U.S. generals and admirals signed a report from the Center for a New American Security stating that climate change "presents significant national security challenges for the United States." Escalating violence in destabilized regions can be incited and fomented by an increasing scarcity of resources -- including water. This lack of resources, driven by climate change patterns, then drives massive migration to more stabilized regions of the world. The proposed endangerment finding now enters the public comment period, which is the next step in the deliberative process EPA must undertake before issuing final findings. Today's proposed finding does not include any proposed regulations. Before taking any steps to reduce greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, EPA would conduct an appropriate process and consider stakeholder input. Notwithstanding this required regulatory process, both President Obama and Administrator Jackson have repeatedly indicated their preference for comprehensive legislation to address this issue and create the framework for a clean energy economy. We're all screwed. |
| Posted by:logi_cal |
| #23 #11 Bobby: "Got something to say about the EPAÂ’s finding that greenhouse gases are a threat to public health and welfare? YouÂ’ve got 60 days to speak, or forever hold your peace. HereÂ’s how to submit written comments: Email: GHG-Endangerment-Docket@epa.gov Fax: 202.566.1741 Snail mail: Environmental Protection Agency EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) Mailcode 6102T Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC, 20460 In person: EPA Docket CenterÂ’s Public Reading Room EPA West Building, Room 3334 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC, 20004 There will also be two public hearings on the finding next month, one on each coast: May 18 in Arlington, Va., at the EPAÂ’s Potomac Yard Conference Center May 21 in Seattle, Wash., at the Bell Harbor International Conference Center" It's from a source I don't know, but it looks right. Have at it. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2009-04-18 22:26 |
| #22 It should be quite entertaining when the world cools enough to interfere with the growing period at the edges of arable lands. Just a day or two should be enough for crops to start failing, or at least yield less than normal. Wonder how these clowns will blame Bush for that? And how much they'll raise our taxes in response to worldwide food shortages? Pitchfork. Tar. Feathers. Some assembly required. >:-( |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2009-04-18 22:22 |
| #21 increased drought more heavy downpours and flooding Uh....... It's a dry rain, Parabellum. |
| Posted by: gorb 2009-04-18 22:15 |
| #20 Remember that a cardinal rule of MMGW is that it has *no* negative case. That is, nothing exists or can exist that is evidence that MMGW isn't happening. Therefore, if the Earth is warming up, it is because of MMGW; but if the Earth is cooling down, it is because of MMGW. I actually mean this literally. What they call "climate" is so divorced from reality that it only exists in their models. And they feel free to adjust their models as needed to verify their "science" proves MMGW. In other words, MMGW is indistinguishable from magic. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2009-04-18 21:59 |
| #19 Disco wasn't so bad except for the music, the dancing, the clothes and the hair.. umm what was I saying? |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2009-04-18 21:08 |
| #18 Unload the trunk over here in Phoenix, Frank. It'll pay for the car. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2009-04-18 20:52 |
| #17 Ima gonna invest in Angel Flight slacks, Man-purses, and platform shoe companies. You'll be seeing me on Easy Street, driving a tricked out Delorean, babies! |
| Posted by: Frank G 2009-04-18 20:44 |
| #16 Global cooling we can learn to live with; but disco is another matter. |
| Posted by: WolfDog 2009-04-18 20:41 |
| #15 Then to complete the cycle, global cooling and disco will be in fashion again. |
| Posted by: ed 2009-04-18 17:00 |
| #14 and to add to Chemist...As one with advanced degrees in physics and meteorology (and computer science for that matter), I totally reject AGW "theory"...as do a large number of my colleagues. In 3 to 5 years this whole discussion will be moot. The Arctic ice pack will become well above the 30 year average, global temperatures will continue the general downtrend, and mother nature will have the last laugh at the AGW crowd's expense. |
| Posted by: anymouse 2009-04-18 16:54 |
| #13 They forgot: More Vikings are going to roam the seas due to global warming |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2009-04-18 14:47 |
| #12 As an actual scientist ('Chemist' isn't just my posting name, I actually am one - B.Sc. and Ph.D.), I am utterly horrified by what 'experts' try to pass off as 'science'. |
| Posted by: Chemist 2009-04-18 14:46 |
| #11 The proposed endangerment finding now enters the public comment period, which is the next step in the deliberative process EPA must undertake before issuing final findings. So where can I comment? |
| Posted by: Bobby 2009-04-18 14:17 |
| #10 Since when has there been many real scientist at the EPA? The vast majority of them are more politicians then scientists. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2009-04-18 12:29 |
| #9 Your comments truly phrase the reality of this report, that was literally filtered in press 'rewrites'. It's ridiculous from every perspective, seemingly written by a staff assistant rather than ANYONE of intelligent cloth (scientist or otherwise). We've all heard about the THOUSANDS of scientists that object to these sort of findings... Let's hope that the manipulation of the press by releasing this report late on a Friday while everyone was still talking about the tea parties & the DHS report (even Drudge isn't carrying this) doesn't dampen the public's reaction. Smoke & mirrors. Everytime Zero's got an agenda, they do something to distract and pull something like this off to the side. We should all be more aware of this tactic. |
| Posted by: logi_cal 2009-04-18 11:40 |
| #8 clearly the accumulation of greenhouse gases attracts life-killing asteroids like flies to poop. It's Consensusy™!. It's Science™!1!! Deny and you won't like the Re-education Camps, Comrades |
| Posted by: Frank G 2009-04-18 09:51 |
| #7 Let's see: increased drought would be offset by more heavy downpours and flooding; then more frequent and intense heat waves and wildfires would be put out by greater sea level rise; wait adamminit! Are they picking and choosing out of Revelations? Where's the earthquakes and |
| Posted by: AlmostAnonymous5839 2009-04-18 09:36 |
| #6 increased drought more heavy downpours and flooding Uh....... |
| Posted by: Parabellum 2009-04-18 09:04 |
| #5 What utter drivel. To take one example, the poor are at additional health risk because they are poor. Jacking up the cost of energy and implementing new regulatory restrictions on energy use will make them poorer. Hence at greater health risk. And the millions of green jobs is an out and out lie. A recent study from Spain showed one green job required a half million dollars in subsidies. 2 million green jobs would require a trillion dollars in subsidies paid from taxes which would destroy far more jobs. |
| Posted by: Phil_B 2009-04-18 03:51 |
| #4 TEARS FOR FEARS "Shout!"??? Gut Nuthin. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2009-04-18 02:18 |
| #3 I'd just like to mention that CO2 is what plants breathe. It promotes growth! |
| Posted by: Scooter McGruder 2009-04-18 01:41 |
| #2 I wonder how bambi's going to explain how skyrocketing prices are Bush'es fault. Or maybe he and congress will just ignore the people. It isn't as if they have heard anything over the past years. And certainly not after January. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2009-04-18 00:26 |
| #1 ... and sulfur hexafluoride Will everyone who has been exhaling sulfur hexafluoride please return to your home world before the EPA does anything stupider than issue press releases like this. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2009-04-18 00:19 |