Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSome things the Obama EPA Could Do Right Now, About Climate Change:
<snip>
First and foremost, there is the Environmental Protection Agency, which could achieve significant and immediate emissions reductions using nothing more than existing laws and current technologies. According to Kassie Siegel at the Center for Biological Diversity, The Clean Air Act can achieve everything we need: a 40 percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions over 1990 levels by 2020.
Rather boring in tone and dense with legalistic detail, the ongoing fight over EPA
rulemaking is probably the most important environmental battle in a generation. Since 2007, thanks to the pressure and lawsuits of green activists, the EPA has had enormousbut under-utilizedpower. That was the year when the Supreme Court ruled, in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, that the agency should determine whether greenhouse gases threaten human health. In December 2010, the EPA published a science-based endangerment finding, which found that CO2 and five other greenhouse gases are, in fact, dangerous to human life because they cause global warming.
Once the EPA issues an endangerment finding, it is legally bound to promulgate regulations to address the problem. The first of these postMassachusetts v. EPA tailoring rules were for mobile sources. Between 2011 and 2012, regulations for cars and for trucks went into effect. Then the EPA set strict limits for new power plants in 2012. But other major sources of greenhouse gas pollutionlike existing electric power plants (which pump out roughly 40 percent of the nations total GHG emissions), oil refineries, cement plants, steel mills, and shippinghave yet to be properly regulated pursuant to Massachusetts v. EPA.
If the EPA were to use the Clean Air Actand do so with extreme prejudiceit could impose a de facto carbon tax. Industries would still be free to burn dirty fossil fuels, but they would have to use very expensive, and in some cases nonexistent, new technology to meet emission standards. Or they would have to pay very steep and mounting fines for their emissions. Such penalties could reach thousands of dollars per day, per violation. Thus, a de facto carbon tax. Then cheap fossil fuel energy would become expensive, driving investment toward carbon-neutral forms of clean energy like wind and solar. For extra measure we could end fossil fuel subsidies. Before long, it would be more profitable to invest in clean energy sources than dangerous and filthy ones.
<snip>
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/a-radical-approach-to-the-climate-crisis
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 687 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (3)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Some things the Obama EPA Could Do Right Now, About Climate Change: (Original Post)
villager
Aug 2013
OP
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)1. He should note that we get more economic output from less fossil fuel input every year
We also have inefficient markets because of needless transportation of manufactured products and much of the food supply.
Efficiency programs can reduce carbon output faster than renewable energy sources. We should buy both.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)2. Great way to destroy an already fragile economy.
villager
(26,001 posts)3. great way (not) to barf up a discredited rightwing talking point!
I'm sure ongoing climate disasters will do wonders for the economy!