Sentences with phrase «regulate ghgs»

Yet despite these now evident problems with the CRU et al's data and research, EPA is now stuck with the IPCC reports, and therefore the closely associated CRU et al's data and research has become central to its attempts to regulate GHGs.

In his written testimony, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., President of the Waterkeeper Alliance, stressed the importance of the Clean Air Act and and its positive impact on public health, and the need to defend its ability to regulate GHGs.

A stay would allow for the possibility that Congress finally will state its intentions to regulate GHGs under the Clean Air Act, or not, so that this Court will not have to speak for it.»

But the challenges in using § 115 (both Congressional intent and what we've already seen from the courts) to regulate GHGs make any successful outcome practically impossible.

The core contention of Pruitt's EPA lawsuits was the agency's not having the authority to regulate GHGs it and the courts claimed it had.

The 2 - 1 majority ducked the central issue, namely, whether the CAA authorizes the EPA to regulate GHGs as climate change agents.

In contrast, Judge David Tatel's dissent made a strong argument that the EPA does have the power to regulate GHGs and, consequently, has a duty to determine whether GHG emissions endanger public health or welfare.

During the same week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that would severely restrict EPA's authority to regulate GHGs, while taking the highly unusual step of overturning a scientific finding.

From where you stand, does allowing the EPA to have the authority to regulate GHG emissions as dangerous pollutants constitute «moral absolutism?»

kevin (162), «allowing the EPA to have the authority to regulate GHG emissions as dangerous pollutants constitute [s] «moral absolutism?»

# 172 Rod B The president does not just have the authority to regulate GHG emissions, he must obey the law and regulate them.

For 2 years the EPA said it can't regulate GHG.

Furthermore (although I have no idea of whether Spencer was aware of it at the time of writing) Barack Obama has said that absent meaningful legislation on emissions within the first 18 months of inauguration, should he win he will allow the EPA to have the authority to regulate GHG emissions as dangerous pollutants.

Key Issues for Discussion and Comment in the ANPR: Descriptions of key provisions and programs in the CAA, and advantages and disadvantages of regulating GHGs under those provisions; How a decision to regulate GHG emissions under one section of the CAA could or would lead to regulation of GHG emissions under other sections of the Act, including sections establishing permitting requirements for major stationary sources of air pollutants; Issues relevant for Congress to consider for possible future climate legislation and the potential for overlap between future legislation and regulation under the existing CAA; and, scientific information relevant to, and the issues raised by, an endangerment analysis.

``... warned that using outdated programs under the CAA as a tool for regulating GHG emissions will further burden an ailing economy while doing little or nothing to improve the environment.

Minister Kent then committed to a, «systematic approach of regulating GHG emissions sector by sector,» to meet the goal of 17 % below 2005 emissions by 2020.

In their guidance establishing what could be considered Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for regulating GHGs in the permitting process, EPA stated that fuel - switching from coal to natural gas would not and could not be considered BACT: Since NSPS are traditionally interpreted to set the BACT «floor» for permitting purposes, how can a NSPS that eliminates the ability to construct new coal units without the implementation of commercially infeasible carbon capture and storage (CCS) be consistent with EPA's previous guidance?

Although there have been steps taken by individual states (i.e. RGGI and California) to regulate GHG emissions, we have had little success in implementing measures to reduce emissions on a national level, other than piecemeal steps like higher vehicle fuel efficiency standards which are often implemented for other non-climate reasons.

By arguing that climate change poses threats that we may be able to adapt to, Michaels and Cato have unwittingly acknowledged that the EPA is right to regulate GHG emissions due to the threat they pose to public welfare.

Based on its U.S. endangerment finding, EPA can regulate GHG emissions via, for example, New Source Performance Standards under Section 111 (the authority for EPA's Clean Power Plan).

Regulating GHGs under the CAA includes mobile sources as well as stationary sources, such as power plants, that emit large quantities of CO2.

Moreover, I would suggest that those of us in «the electorate» who are well - informed about this issue are well aware that changes in public policy — including putting a price on carbon pollution, directly regulating GHG emissions, and providing effective support for the development and deployment of efficiency and renewable energy technologies on a scale at least comparable to the subsidies that fossil fuels have received for a century — are far more effective than the options that any individual can currently choose, and are in fact crucial to making more such options available to all of us.

In this case, your unsupported generalization that «the electorate could not care less» about climate change was rebutted with actual opinion polls showing that significant majorities of «the electorate» do, in fact, care a good deal, and consider the issue a priority for the President and the Congress, and support policies to regulate GHG emissions and to hold fossil fuel corporations responsible for the full costs of their products.

As a result of this EPA decision, EPA's fortunes in regulating GHGs are directly tied to the fate of the IPCC reports.

This is because EPA, perhaps at the urging of others in the Obama Administration, has proposed to regulate GHG emissions on the basis of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports and reports primarily based on these reports.

While regulating GHG emissions to combat global warming may be a legitimate end, California may not do so through the use of invalid legislative means.

Not exact matches

Regardless of its fate, a proposal before the U.S. Senate to bar the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse gases (GHGs) has raised important questions about the role of science in setting policy.

Accordingly, it is possible that in the future, U.S. EPA or individual states may seek (or be required) to regulate carbon dioxide or other GHG emissions from biomass - fired power plants, including requiring such plants to retroactively obtain permits or install pollution control technology.

Agriculture offsets are also being considered by California regulators for eligibility in the state's new regulated market, where GHG emitters like power plants and oil refineries are mandated to reduce emissions.

At the federal level, the Senate voted down several amendments (detailed summaries available here) that would have restricted EPA's ability to regulate dangerous greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution.

The case was eventually appealed to the Supreme Court, and in April 2007 the Court ruled that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases (GHGs) are pollutants and can be regulated under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

Provides that a stationary source is not required to apply for, or operate pursuant to, a permit solely because the source emits any GHGs that are regulated solely because of their effect on global climate change.

Unless the President and the EPA Administrator step up to their responsibilities as defined in the Clean Air Act and begin to regulate all sources of America's carbon emissions, not just those of the electric utility industry, then America's own GHG emissions will never be reduced to the extent that climate activists are demanding.

Agriculture offsets are also being considered by California regulators for eligibility in the state's new regulated market, where GHG emitters like power plants and oil refineries are mandated to reduce or offset their emissions starting in 2013.

Regulatory approval of a fertilizer management offset methodology would enable GHG emission offsets created by farmers to be sold to regulated entities with mandatory emission reduction obligations under the cap - and - trade program.

Sixteen years ago, the first global review of reservoir GHG emissions highlighted the potential significance of reservoir surfaces as GHG sources and postulated that factors such as age, water temperature, and organic carbon inputs could regulate fluxes (St. Louis et al. 2000).

With a proposed rule on light - duty vehicles waiting in the wings, the agency issued today — opening day for the climate talks in Copenhagen — its «endangerment finding» concluding that GHGs pose a threat to both public health and welfare, tests required under the Clean Air Act in order to regulate emissions from point sources, such as power plants, manufacturing plants, and vehicles.

EPA did so and on December 15, 2009 issued it's ruling that CO2 and other GHGs must be regulated.

The Court found that the Endangerment Finding was well supported by the scientific facts and that the Clean Air Act compelled the EPA to regulate motor vehicle and stationary source emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs).

** Since the Tailpipe Rule makes GHGs regulated air pollutants, major stationary sources of GHGs are subject to PSD and BACT, EPA reasons.

The centerpiecof the bill is a program to regulate the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), mostly carbon dioxide from the combustion of fossil fuels — electricity generation from fossil fuels, home heating, and gasoline used in transportation being a few major source categories.

If we have to price GHG emissions and regulate compliance, the compliance cost will inevitably become a huge cost.

Pundits and reporters today are speculating on the election results» impact on proposed environmental regulations, including the future of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) plan to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the Clean Air Act.

I support regulating coal and coal power more stringently then it is (ash, mountaintop removal, and GHGs — I don't know how strong the Hg regulation is; haven't kept up with the acid rain issue as much).

EPA did so and on December 15, 2009 issued its ruling that CO2 and other GHGs must be regulated.

Makes sense, especially since it was the courts who told the EPA that the clean air act required them to regulate carbon dioxide and other GHGs as pollutants.

Addressing another alternative — regulating only tailpipe GHG emissions in California — Defendants speculate that it «may result in greater emissions overall,» though CARB stated that GHG emissions could be reduced by «increasing vehicle efficiency» or «reducing the number of vehicle miles traveled.»

An explanation given by the Obama Administration was that they would prefer that GHGs be regulated under «cap and trade» legislation, but that perhaps the threat of administrative regulation would spur Congressional action.

It seeks to deny the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) any role in regulating greenhouse gases (GHG), pollutants that are widely acknowledged to be pushing the planet towards uncontrolled climate change.