Obama Wins the Cap and Trade War to Cut Ozone Pollution

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Starting in January 2012, the EPA will implement the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) cap and trade program that will put a cap on ground-level ozone (smog) nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide that crosses state lines. The EPA cap and trade program will achieve similar results to last year's climate bill, making coal less attractive financially than clean energy.

The Obama administration may have lost the battle but it has won the war. Last year, the Waxman-Markey climate bill (which capped coal plant pollution, in order to curtail climate change) was killed in the Senate (Republican filibuster) after passing the then heavily Democratic House.

Now, with no climate bill, it will be the EPA's own cap and trade under the CSAPR starting in January that will cut climate change, one of several EPA actions which which will curtail the use of coal. The loss will be made up by shifting to more natural gas, wind, solar, geothermal, hydropower, biomass and eventually ocean energy and nuclear power for electricity. The coal industry can also, to some extent, clean up as well.

The EPA has successfully administered cap and trade systems in the past. EPA cap and trade got the lead from our gasoline and EPA cap and trade got the acid from our rain, (and under the Montreal Protocol, international cap and trade is closing the stratospheric ozone hole over Antarctica) So it has a long history of success in putting a cap on pollution, and then ratcheting it down, using cap and trade.

Under cap and trade, dirty power plants must cap pollution. That is the cap. Dirty power plants must pay money to the cleaner power plants. That is the trade (in "emissions quotas"). The money from the dirty power plants pays for the new technology that the clean power plants install to emit less pollution. It is simple, and costs taxpayers little or less than nothing: the CBO score of the climate cap and trade bill showed a net gain of $60 billion over the next eight years, for example.

Republicans have mounted CRA resolutions to put an end to the implementation of the cap and trade plan by the EPA ( S.J. Res 27 and H.R. 2891) but Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolutions can be vetoed by the president, and overcoming a presidential veto would take 67 votes in the Senate. With only 47 Republicans, that would be about as hard for them as it has been over these last 5 years for a Democratic majority of under 60 (for all but a few months) to overcome the persistent Republican filibuster, which only takes 40 votes.

Surprisingly, the shoe is on the other foot.

Susan Kraemer

http://cleantechnica...zone-pollution/

[luckytxn 2,264]

Obama the Socialist has to be trying to destroy America as fast as possible because he knows he will probably not be reelected. I think this will bring the unemployment figures up a couple of notches.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

the EPA should be shot.

[lostinblue 1,989]

The environmentalist are for any energy source unless it actually works" Stephen Hayward.

[Pooky 3,787]

So, once again the President and this administration show their contempt for due political process and do an end-around Congress to implement policy that failed to garner sufficient votes in both Houses. Where will it end?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

We will see who laughs when the EPA is defunded.

[Pooky 3,787]

So, you think the President should have the the power to enact policy, regardless of Congress?

And you keep referring to your "Beloved Constitution". Seems it's only that way when you like the outcome of its application.

The Constitution was drawn up to stop precisely this kind of abuse, to prevent one single arm of government having what amounts to dictatorial power. Regardless of whether the policy is worthy or not, the abuse of process is staggering.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

So, you think the President should have the the power to enact policy, regardless of Congress?

And you keep referring to your "Beloved Constitution". Seems it's only that way when you like the outcome of its application.

The Constitution was drawn up to stop precisely this kind of abuse, to prevent one single arm of government having what amounts to dictatorial power. Regardless of whether the policy is worthy or not, the abuse of process is staggering.

He thinks OBAMA should, not "the President"

The House approves budgets for departments

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So, you think the President should have the the power to enact policy, regardless of Congress?

You're being obtuse. Read the first sentence of the article again. Here, I'll repost it for you.

Starting in January 2012, the EPA will implement the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) cap and trade program that will put a cap on ground-level ozone (smog) nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide that crosses state lines.

...and just who is this EPA?

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or sometimes USEPA) is an agency of the federal government of the United States charged with protecting human health and the environment, by writing and enforcing regulations based on laws passed by Congress.^[2] The EPA was proposed by President Richard Nixon and began operation on December 3, 1970, after Nixon submitted a reorganization plan to Congress and it was ratified by committee hearings in the House and Senate.^[3] The agency is led by its Administrator, who is appointed by the president and approved by Congress.

That's I'm from all the asinine posts that followed.

[Pooky 3,787]

You're being obtuse. Read the first sentence of the article again. Here, I'll repost it for you.

...and just who is this EPA?

That's I'm from all the asinine posts that followed.

And, from your own quote ...

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or sometimes USEPA) is an agency of the federal government of the United States charged with protecting human health and the environment, by writing and enforcing regulations based on laws passed by Congress.[2] The EPA was proposed by President Richard Nixon and began operation on December 3, 1970, after Nixon submitted a reorganization plan to Congress and it was ratified by committee hearings in the House and Senate.[3] The agency is led by its Administrator, who is appointed by the president and approved by Congress.

The EPA is empowered to write and enforce regulations based on laws passed by Congress.

So, do you agree that, as Congress did not pass Cap and Trade, the EPA and, by extension, this administration is overreaching its power?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

And, from your own quote ...

The EPA is empowered to write and enforce regulations based on laws passed by Congress.

So, do you agree that, as Congress did not pass Cap and Trade, the EPA and, by extension, this administration is overreaching its power?

EPA finalized the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule

....

I’d be shocked if this rule doesn’t survive judicial review, assuming it is challenged. The D.C. Circuit opinion striking down CAIR pretty much told EPA what to do – it has to implement a rule that ensures that each state meets its own emissions limit. EPA has done that, allowing basically free trading within states, and allowing interstate trading – so long as each state lives within its cap. Given the requirements of the Clean Air Act, it’s hard to see how EPA isn’t required – let alone permitted – to issue at least something very like this rule.

The irony is that the Republicans in Congress who oppose all of EPA’s rules – Representative Mike Simpson (R. ID.) called EPA the “scariest agency in the federal government” – had it in their power to allow EPA to regulate in a more cost-effective manner. Three pollutant legislation that would have allowed interstate trading was on the table in 2009 and 2010. It even had some Republican support. However, now the approach seems to be that it’s better to oppose all environmental legislation, even if that includes legislation that would be unambiguously better than what’s on the books today.

http://www.lawandenvironment.com/tags/crossstate-air-pollution-rule/

[scandal 951]

Do you ever get the feeling not everyone here distinguishes carbon emissions (CO2) from N02 and SO2 emissions?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Do you ever get the feeling not everyone here distinguishes carbon emissions (CO2) from N02 and SO2 emissions?