Tucson Citizen.com
Wry Heat - by Jonathan DuHamel

Greenhouse gas regulations could cost trillions

by on Mar. 30, 2011, under Politics

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to regulate carbon dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act.   Reports from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works estimate that the cost of these proposed regulations will be about $78 billion per year.  The regulations will affect industries, farms, hospitals, office buildings, and hotels to name just a few.  The regulations will adversely affect our ability to produce energy and structural materials.

The regulations are meant to forestall dread global warming.  So how effective will these regulations be?  According to the EPA’s own estimate, the regulations will have this effect:

“Based on the reanalysis the results for projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations are estimated to be reduced by an average of 2.9 ppm (previously 3.0 ppm), global mean temperature is estimated to be reduced by 0.006 to 0.015 [deg]C by 2100 (previously 0.007 to 0.016 [deg]C) and sea-level rise is projected to be reduced by approximately 0.06-0.14cm by 2100 (previously 0.06-0.15cm).”  - source: Federal Register 75, page 25,495.

If we add up the yearly costs, then by the year 2100, we will have spent about $7 trillion to make us cooler by 0.015 degrees Centigrade.  This is beyond stupid.

The EPA has long been a den of policy-driven perversions of science.  It is time for Congress to come to its senses and specifically forbid the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases.  Even better would be for Congress eliminate the EPA.

Copyrighted by Jonathan DuHamel. Reprint is permitted provided that credit of authorship is provided and linked back to the source. Check the ARTICLE INDEX page for more posts on geology, natural history of the Sonoran desert, climate change, and energy. Also check the BOOK REVIEWS page.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 30th, 2011 at 10:41 am and is filed under Politics. Tags for this post: , , , , . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

RSS feed for this post (comments)
  • Nate

    Everything you just said it incorrect, misinterpretations of Science, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

    First of all, they regulate green house gases, but they haven’t said at what level these gases will be regulated at yet. So there is no way to obtain hard data. The chamber of commerce took the worst case scenarios and ran with it.

    Secondly, you ignore that the regulation isn’t completely about global warming. The CDC states that 200,000 Americans die every year from pollution related respitory illnesses. The economic contribution of these people is estimated at $9 billion a year by the IRS and Chamber of Commerce (average impact per person times 200k). Since the deaths occur yearly, the impact is exponential, (you have to incorporate age of the person and life expectancy without the pollution related illness, but you get the idea, i hope). So the economic impact of not regulating these gases could be worse than that of doing so. In addition, regulation can create jobs, through technologies used to meet new standards, construction to make cleaner plans, and regulators.

    You took an argument, basted it in bias, and served it up as fact. You only addressed the negatives of the issue, while ignoring reason and reality. How this article isn’t posted in the Opinion section of this paper is beyond me… Let’s just hope nobody believed your supposed insight.

    • Jonathan DuHamel

      Nate,

      The cost estimates in my article are based on what the EPA said it was proposing for GHG regulation. I agree that EPA is proposing to regulate other emissions also. For instance, EPA proposes to regulate mercury emissions from power plants. There is, however, no scientific evidence that ambient levels of mercury pose a health problem.

      • http://none Jim Bodkins

        The problem isnt ambient mercury levels. Mercury concentrates and becomes a health risk.

  • http://none Jim Bodkins

    By the way, the US Chamber of commerce is a lobbying firm that represent US and foreign companies. By definition, any report from them can be considered part of their overall lobbying effort – hardly credible.
     
    As lobbyists they pay for independent contractors. Are you affiliated with the US Chamber of commerce in any way?
     

  • Nate (2)

    “… the cost of these proposed regulations will be about $78 billion per year. ”
    On the flip side, every cost has a corresponding gain. So my question to you is, “Where does that $78 billion per year go?” I bet it produces other benefits beyond the reduction in CO2.
    Oh, FWIW, I happen to agree wholeheartedly with the first Nate.

  • AMR1960

    CO2 is NOT Toxic to the Environment.

    Many Liberals lament the attack on the EPA’s regulatory authority, instead blame your Climate Nazi friends in the EPA for Conflating CO2 with real toxins.

    The Liberals chose under what parameters this issue was going to be fought on.

    The EPA in it’s zeal to regulate CO2 not only engaged in a Constitutional overreach. They did it by modifying a regulation[250 ton/yr]action level that determines what qualifies as a toxic pollutant subject to regulation under Clean Air Act [never done before, all previous triggers had a 250 ton/yr trigger] [they raised it to 25,000/ton/yr]

    If the existing regulatory standard, which has served us well since the 70′s–were adhered to: MOST SMALL BUSINESS ALONG WITH OVER 40% OF ALL HOUSEHOLDS EARNING OVER 100,000/YEAR WOULD HAVE TO GET PERMITTED UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT!

    Agenda driven regulatory excesses are leading to nightmare scenarios, where crypto-Marxist greens seek to sequester more than just your Carbon Footprint.

    • http://none Jim Bodkins

      Crypto-Marxist greens – sorry to go all ad hominem … but … you make no sense.

  • James S. Oliver

    Tooo MUCH to do about Near NOTHING !!!   With China, Russia, Brazil, Mexico and others emitting far greater CO2 than the USA,  the proposed / COSTLY ‘regulations’ (NOT Congressional Laws) will have very little GLOBAL effect.

    The EPA recently contacted cattle farms here in Kentucky to warn them that one consideration they are contemplating is; “A $75.00 per year per cow” as a ‘Gas Tax’ levied on the number of cattle in USA that emit ‘digestive gas’ …….REDICULOUS.  This is a thinly veiled attempt to TAX/TAX/TAX the Beef Cattle industry out of business.

    • http://none Jim Bodkins

      Sounds absurd. References or it didnt happen.

      • Jonathan DuHamel
        • http://none Jim Bodkins

          Thanks for the link. You are however quoting 1) a piece of partisan propaganda and 2) it doesnt reference any attempts to regulate cow flatulence.
           
          Here are what I believe to be accurate facts.
           
          The EPA was involved in a law suit with Massachusetts – involving the EPA attempting to regulate additional greenhouse gases on the grounds that they are ‘harmful’. I believe methane was in question. (I believe the centerpiece of the lawsuit involved cars).
           
          The result of the suit was (a legal miasma that took time to resolve) that once the EPA had identified a material/gas as harmful, they could not limit enforcement of the material/gas. It was the hysterical agribusiness and extremist conservatives that at that point insisted it must apply to cow farts. Clearly an attempt to take the situation intentionally out of context and create a misperception in the the minds of the generally ignorant Americans. It worked.
           
          Here is an example of extremist partisan propaganda. I will say however that at least in the first two paragraphs they did state ‘some’ of the facts accurately. I will also note that it is they that insist that a fart tax must occur – not the EPA. Here is the  link
           
          http://agriscribe.com/disp_article.php?aid=2746
           
          My next reference:
           
          http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20110313/BUSINESS01/103130324/Farmers-won-t-pay-cow-tax-EPA-chief-says
           
          … is from the press. (While the previous like was not) In this article you will find a fragment of testimony -
           
          The so-called cow tax had been a point of contention from farm-state representatives who had suggested that the EPA intended to regulate the methane emissions from cows as part of its environmental oversight. Jackson called the cow tax “a mischaracterization.”

          “The truth is, EPA is proposing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a responsible, careful manner, and we have even exempted agricultural sources from regulation,” she said.
           
           
          - this is clear. It was partisan conservative that proposed a ‘cow tax’ not the EPA.
           
          As a note. Your ‘science’ seems to pass a political litmus test. I find that decidedly unscientific to be honest. Just a comment.
           

          • Jonathan DuHamel

            Your references deal with methane; I’m talking about carbon dioxide. BTW, your comment was delayed because it was caught in the TC spam catcher, something I don’t have control of until I happen to check the the WordPress “dashboard”

            • http://none Jim Bodkins

              I understand. My comments were for the most part in reference to a comment made by someone out of state. They brought it up, not you. My use of the word you referred to them.
               
              My final note referred to a clearly partisan document that was meant to appear to be a consequence of some official process in the Senate when in fact it was written by minority staff and had no part in any official process in the US Senate.
               

              • Jonathan DuHamel

                For additional reference read this article by a retired EPA economist:
                A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/8/4/985/pdf
                 

        • http://none Jim Bodkins

          Surely you will publish the comment I just submitted …

«
»