Priligy online now, save money

FEB 21

Recent Comment

"Methane is a much worse greenhouse gas than C02. Which gasses will al..."

View all Comments

EPA Likely To Regulate Emissions For First Time

President Obama promised change when he was elected, and now it appears that he has enabled a big one.  The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to announce within months that for the first time it will regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.  The move would serve as an official recognition of global warming as an environmental threat. And, frankly, we can't believe it took so long.

For some time agency experts have been virtually unanimous in their declaration that carbon dioxide emissions are a pollutant and a danger to public health.  However, the previous administration refused to allow the cheap tramadol with free shipping EPA to regulate this  danger. During the previous administration a Supreme Court order for the EPA to determine the impact of carbon dioxide emissions was essentially ignored.

Lisa P. Jackson, the new EPA administrator has announced that her staff is reviewing the evidence and has hinted that she may announce a decision by April 2, the second anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling, which occurred in the case Massachusetts v.EPA.

Says Ms. Jackson, “We here know how momentous that decision could be.  We have to lay out a road map.”

Regulation by the EPA of carbon dioxide emissions would be a tremendous victory  for alternative energy technology.  It would allow financial pressure to be applied to power utilities, making them more likely to switch to solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, or other alternatives.  Further, it would mark the U.S. government at last deciding to join the world community in trying to cut carbon dioxide  emissions and fight global warming, something which would make more than a few ecogeeks’ day.

Via NYTimes

Hits: 14006
Comments (17)Add Comment
written by lalala, February 21, 2009
Yes! Finally. This is definitely a win for us, fellow EcoGeeks. The only thing I have to say is Yay!
written by James, February 22, 2009
I think its a strange designation to give CO2, calling it a "pollutant". We and all other living animals breath it out every day, plants cannot grow and survive without it, and it is naturally produced in many ways right out of our earth. Calling it a pollutant starts to viagra next day shipping twist definitions, and for a definite purpose, as your article points out. To push an agenda.
I am ALL in favor of renewable energy and see many benefits to going this way. Count me as one of the skeptics to human caused Global Warming though.
When I started reading about all this about a year ago I was terrified by the prospect of massive weather change, "tipping points", and the sea levels rising. I really was scarred by it, and mad at anyone who thought it wasn't real. Slowly though, I began to listen to the other side, at first with deep skepticism. The arguments against the hysteria over global warming was compelling, yet I stayed on the fence for a long time. Now, although I can't say I am convinced absolutely, I very much doubt the slight increase of CO2 (relative to our massive atmosphere and all the best online generic levitra CO2 naturally present with out our help) could "cause" a catastrophic shift in temperature and mail order levitra weather patterns. One of the most compelling arguments I've seen is buy viagra overnight that increases and decreases in CO2 in the atmosphere FOLLOWS temperature changes (by a couple hundred years), rather than leads or causes temperature change. This relationship was misrepresented by Gore in "An Inconvenient Truth".
Anyway, no one who's mind is already firmly closed over this issue will care what I have to say about it. I only wish to offer my evolution in thought about the issue. A lot can be found on the internet on the skeptic's side, for those who want to how to get viagra no prescription test their resolve. Try:
to get started.
BTW, I can't stand G.W. Bush and am delighted over President Obama- for those who would like to pigeonhole me. This is not a political issue.
Naysayers will be defeated
written by Enrique, February 22, 2009
George Walker Bush and his cronies in the oil,and coal industry will be defeated. We should be able to start closing coal plants every year in this country for the next 20 years.
I hope we don't allow exceptions to built more coal plants in the South.
Lets wait and see...
written by Chris, February 22, 2009 tough the regulation standards will be and whether the EPA will actually be given the means to enforce them. A lot of lobbyists in Washington will be taking up arms against any regulation...
Also less interested in CO2 than in othe
written by bobbobberson, February 22, 2009
I also have some skepticism about C02 being the most major danger to the planet. By concentrating solely on soft levitra tablets C02 as the only cause of Global warming, (and the only main cause of environmental degradation,) may take resources away from studying other environmental causes that offer a better return on investment. Desertification, Logging, overfishing, particulate matter and lung cancer, Whaling, etc. all seem to be environmental topics that get pushed aside due to where can i buy cialis the overwhelming news coverage of Big Bad C02.

Now if regulating C02 cause increases in green-tech energy by pushing coal out of the energy equation then that is fine. Coal is dirty but I would support more of taxing/regulating particulate matter over C02.

As it stands chemically "carbon dioxide emissions are a pollutant and a danger to public health. " is "false". C02 is of such low % of the atmosphere that large increases in it will go unnoticed. C02 makes up ,.03 % of the atmosphere and if it were to go to .04% no's body will notice. Particulate matter (which seems to come hand-in-hand with C02 emissions) harms the body far more.
Definition of Pollutant
written by Carl, February 22, 2009
While we usually use "pollutant" to describe smoke, sulphur dioxide, etc. there is a separate, specific legal definition with repect to the EPA, and has been the subject of a Supreme Court case. The legal definition essentially means a human-caused substance that can cause environmental harm. It's been decided-- CO2 emissions fit the legal definition of pollutant that the EPA is obligated to regulate.

There is so much bogus information on the question of CO2 being a problem, it's almost not worth arguing about. People are going to deny it no matter what. You can find a lot of information by skeptics, but because it exists doesn't necessarily mean it's correct.

Many environmental problems like desertification, logging, etc. are also related to CO2, and yes are also important. We shouldn't stop worrying about habitat loss (including that for humans), worry about particulates, etc. to address CO2 and vice versa.
More on the definition of pollutant
written by Julian, February 23, 2009
The word pollutant is not only referred to fedex levitra "toxic checmicals made by men". In environmental sciences, "pollution" refers to something that is added as a new component of a system and wouldn't naturally be there, or something that is increased in a way that would not naturally happen.

So if we add C02 to the atmosphere in ways that would naturally not occure, that C02 is a pollutant.

That's why heat can be a pollutant (and a serious one in rivers for example, from water used in industrial cooling), noise can be a pollutant, and even light can be a pollutant. "But hey, the Sun makes light! Light for solar panels is cialis paypal good!" - that's not an argument and buy viagra online 50mg it doesn't change what "pollutant" means.
Positive Pollutant
written by Musson, February 23, 2009
Let's not ignore the fact that increases in CO2 actually improve plant growth. And, thermal 'pollution' from Florida power plants has had a profoundly positive impact on Manatee numbers.
Great News!
written by Peter McEvoy, February 23, 2009
Finally, the States are getting some sense back into their policies. This is definitely a great step toward curbing warming.
political pollution
written by James, February 23, 2009
By that broad definition we could say that excessive political and financial attention being directed the wrong direction, as toward CO2, might be considered a "pollutant" since it takes away precious resources from other perhaps more important environmental concerns (such as massive deforestation, massive over-fishing of the oceans, and of cialis canadian pharmacy course chemical contamination of products, buildings, air...).
This is why the definition is important and the issue of global warming is so important. Where do buy viagra online and get prescription we really need to spend our time and money on this earth?
And Global Warming alarmists are looking for MASSIVE money and attention for this cause.
I'm just saying:
written by bobbobberson, February 23, 2009
Not that C02 isn't a pollutant to never be tackled, its just that deforestation is happening more because of the chain-saw and that fish-stock declines are happening because of drag nets, and taking C02 back down to ~.02% isn't going to do squat compared with stopping logging and overfishing.
Marketing Analyst
written by Ekaterina, February 27, 2009
Working with CSA (the World Secretariat for the development of ISO 14064) to help create its new climate change website,, really helped open my eyes to the 'holistic' view we need to take when measuring climate change impacts. You've got to account for all the sources, sinks, reservoirs and directed actions before you can even establish a baseline footprint, let alone know where to discount viagra europe work for reductions. By the way, CO2 really should be CO2e in most contexts, since GHGs are measured and reported in CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent). But that's just semantics. Does anyone know if EPA will be examining CO2e, or in other words all GHGs?
written by Stefan, March 04, 2009
Will the EPA examining CO2e, or in other words all GHGs? A very good question considering the overall effect that methane (not even mentioned yet in this stream) has on climate change. Methane heat trapping ability is many times more than carbon dioxide and is a significant contributor to climate change. (especially when you consider that often, we trade CO2 sinks, or trees, for methane producing cows)
written by frisbee, March 04, 2009
Yes, there is a big climate-change happening. At an increasing speed.

Yes, current extremely fast climate-change can hardly be other then man made.

Yes, the climate-change happening is a gigantic threat to a lot of life on viagra online pharmacy no prescription earth, including humanity.

Yes, we know many (if not all) of the factors that contribute to current climate-change.

Yes, we have many possibilities to decrease our devastating impact.

Yes, forcefully reducing fossil CO2 emissions will add significantly to reducing speed of climate change.

Yes, we certainly also need to forcefully reduce other factors that contribute to climate change: like save (and replant) our (rain)forests and reduce methane-emissions (cows!).

Yes, this will take time to achieve. But the more we wait for the ultimate proof of devastating impact of climate-change before acting, the harder it will get to fda approved viagra women stop climate-change at a relatively comfortable level.

Yes, we can.

And yes, we should.

Yes, right now.

Yes, I find it very encouraging the EPA finally will announce 'that for the first time it will regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases':-)
Regulating CO2 would violate 1st Amendme
written by IggyDalrymple, March 04, 2009
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of non prescription type cialis religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."
written by lWillyg, March 07, 2009
Yes, it is easy to fool most of the people most of the time. Just ask Germany about the 40's
other problems
written by Brian, March 29, 2009
Methane is a much worse greenhouse gas than C02. Which gasses will also fall under the cap and trade system? There needs to be specific guidelines or these problems will end up in a court system wasting time and money there.

Write comment

security code
Write the displayed characters


Are you an EcoGeek?

We've got to keep 7 billion people happy without destroying our planet. It's the biggest challenge we've ever faced....but we're taking it on. Are you with us?

The Most Popular Articles