The EPA Steps In To Regulate Greenhouse Gases In Case Of Cap And Trade Failure

Tyler Durden's picture

Goldman's tentacles are smart, and know all about contingency planning. With so much of the firm's future strategy contingent on Cap And Trade derived profits, the firm is hedging for a downside case scenario. The attached presentation by the Environmental Protection Agency is just the fall back plan. UEA debate notwithstanding, the EPA, after "careful consideration of the full weight of scientific evidence and a thorough review of numerous public comments received on the Proposed Findings published April 24, 2009" has found that "six greenhouse gases taken in combination endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations." Truly an opportune timing for the EPA to come up with this report, seeing how suddenly scientific evidence does not really mean as much as it used to...oh, one month ago. And not to mention that whole Goldman/Cap And Trade backlash of course.

Here are the "definitive" conclusions from the report:

CO2 is dangerous (p.8):

Pursuant to CAA section 202(a), the Administrator
finds that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health
and to endanger public welfare. Specifically, the Administrator is defining the "air pollution" referred to
in CAA section 202(a) to be the mix of six long-lived and directly-emitted greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). In this document, these six greenhouse gases are referred to as “well-mixed greenhouse gases” in this document (with more precise meanings of “long lived” and “well mixed” provided in Section IV.A)

The whole totally blown out of proportion topic of data destruction (p.46):

Our response regarding the request to reopen the comment period due to concerns about alleged destruction of raw global surface data is discussed more fully in the Response to Comments document, Volume 11. The commenter did not provide any compelling reason to conclude that the absence of these data would materially affect the trends in the temperature records or conclusions drawn about them in
the assessment literature and reflected in the TSD.
The Hadley Centre/Climate Research Unit (CRU) temperature record (referred to as HadCRUT) is just one of three global surface temperature records that EPA and the assessment literature refer to and cite. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) also produce temperature records, and all three temperature records have been extensively peer reviewed. Analyses of the three global temperature records produce essentially the same long-term trends as noted in the Climate Change Science Program
(CCSP) (2006) report "Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere," IPCC (2007), and NOAA's study5 "State of the Climate in 2008". Furthermore, the commenter did not demonstrate that the allegedly destroyed data would
materially alter the HadCRUT record or meaningfully hinder its replication. The raw data, a small part of which has not been public (for reasons described at:, are available in a quality-controlled (or homogenized, value-added) format and the methodology for developing the quality-controlled data is described in the peer reviewed literature (as documented at"

On the proposed regulation to date (p. 22-23):

"On September 15, 2009, EPA and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA) proposed a National Program that would dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve fuel economy for new cars and trucks sold in the United States. The combined EPA and NHTSA standards that make up this proposed National Program would apply to passenger cars, light-duty
trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles, covering model years 2012 through 2016. They proposed to require these vehicles to meet an estimated combined average emissions level of 250 grams of carbon dioxide per mile, equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon (MPG) if the automobile industry were to meet this carbon dioxide level solely through fuel economy improvements. Together, these proposed standards would cut carbon dioxide emissions by an estimated 950 million metric tons and 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program (model years 2012-2016). The proposed rulemaking can be viewed at (74 FR 49454, September 28, 2009)."

As a reminder Congress can use the Congressional Review Act to overrrule regulations, and if they end up violating procedures to protect small businesses, indian tribes, etc., injured parties may have rights to object. Wink, wink.

Full EPA document:


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Michael's picture
Glenn Beck Climategate Warning CG Slaughtered Polar Bears Part 1 12-07-09

Glenn Beck Climategate Part 2 12-07-09


Michael's picture

Bret Baier Climategate on CO2 Regulation 12-07-09

Bret Baier Best Climategate Discussion 12-07-09

SilverIsKing's picture

This shit has gotten so ridiculous.  All of a sudden, the EPA comes up with this crap.  Well everyone, it's time to stop exhaling cause it'll kill ya.  Just hold your breath, you'll be fine.

Apocalypse Now's picture

Must See, You Won't Be Dissappointed, Real Information, Shocking:

Amazing, I promise!

Slewburger's picture


I knew that guy was sharp, but I had no idea he was that awesome.

Apocalypse Now's picture

I saw Obama's head of the EPA on the Daily Show and she said that they weren't going to regulate your exhaling breath...yet (to chuckles, nervous laughter).  They might as well regulate water and call it a dangerous substance.  This administration is losing  credibility, it's dangerous to lie to the american public, just tell us the truth about peak cheap oil, mercury pollution, and our foreign war policy position to defend oil imports.  Do not sacrifice any sovereignty over fake global warming and enrich oligarch bankers.

I think a reference to the Police song "Every Breath You Take" is apt for the coming Police state:

Every breath you take and every move you make
Every bond you break
Every step you take, I'll be watching you
Every single day and every word you say
Every game you play
Every night you stay, I'll be watching you
Oh can't you see you belong to me?

Your breath generates CO2, your freedom of movement generates CO2, CO2 is generated by the breaking of molecular bonds.  The police state wants to track it all, they'll be watching you and they want to own you.

If you watch the video link I posted, and you are a sentient being, I guarantee you will know the truth.

tip e. canoe's picture

"They might as well regulate water and call it a dangerous substance."

meanwhile in the real world, water is a dangerous substance for millions of americans:

of course, there are already laws on the books to stop this from occurring, IF there was enforcement that is.  and of course, the agency who is in charge of enforcement is the EPA.

SEC, EPA -- see a pattern here?


-273's picture

Brilliant. Almost brought a tear to my eye. Not shocking because I already knew most of it through my own research, but eloquently spoken, with humour, intelligence and honesty. Thanks for sharing.

Apocalypse Now's picture

I had the exact same reaction - please distribute this far and wide, this settles the science once and for all.

The AGW pushers are trying to silence him and would not let him debate Al Gore.  This is the most important speech for freedom today.  After listening to him, there is no doubt.

Missing_Link's picture

Thanks for the link, Apocalypse.  This is a great video; any doubts I still had about global warming being a fraud after "Climategate" are now GONE.

Apocalypse Now's picture

Great Missing Link - Please distribute far and wide to anyone that will listen.

Most of the debate these days are people trying to shout over other people or stating the science is settled and refusing any scientific discussion.

This video does what thousands of hours of shouting can not do, it provides truth.  Warm, shining, delicious truth.  For those that haven't seen this, you won't believe what he says at the end, what this is really about!

harveywalbinger's picture

Thanks for posting the Lord Christopher Monckton lecture.  Awesome stuff.  

Hephasteus's picture

Wrap them up in bubble wrap.

Then roll them down a rocky mountain.

Assetman's picture

Better kill all the cows... or at least invent bovine anti-fart pills.  Can't have too much methane messing things up, you know.

What a bunch of maroons.

Michael's picture


If all this madness is too much for anyone to bear and you are wondering how did we ever get to this ridiculous point then I highly recommend this documentary, which explains the origin of idioting and how idiots have played a vital role in society for centuries. While many idiots are self taught, this documentary confirms that they have been formally teaching idiocy at the University of East Anglia since at least the 70’s (when the documentary was made).

If you listen at 2:42 you can hear the narrator say,

“Mr Phil Jones is no ordinary idiot. He is a lecturer in idiocy at? the University of East Anglia. After 3 years of study.. these apprentice idiots receive a diploma of idiocy, a handful of mud and a kick on the face.” "

Fish Gone Bad's picture

Anyone read the only non-quoted Michael Crichton book, State of Fear?  This topic was covered quite well.  Keep everyone afraid, keep everyone very very afraid.

Anonymous's picture

Dear EPA: Fuck you. Come and get me...

tom a taxpayer's picture

In Section III F (beginning on page 108) of the EPA document, the EPA responds to commenters who raise several excellent points, including that the EPA needs to take a broader view of the public health and welfare, and that the cure is worse than the illness. 

EPA's response is that Congress requires EPA to have a narrow focus, and that EPA cannot examine whether the cure is worse than the illness. 

EPA: EPA's medicine is designed to stop the patient's flatulence. If the medicine kills the patient, that is not EPA's problem. 

Anonymous's picture

Don't be an idiot about science.

Anonymous's picture

Gavin "Hansen's Bulldog" Schmidt & Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann? No thanks, pal. Gavin could have released and admitted that the GISS code (that supposedly makes the UEA code immaterial) became a horrible FORTRAN kludge over the years, but chose to also avoid, evade & deny. How does it feel to be a supporter of trashing the FOI Act? You want REAL science? Watts' is a start. You want real statistics where the work is shown? McIntyre's ClimateAudit and Lucia's Blackboard are the definition of transparency. Furthermore, current climatology students are beginning to question the orthodoxy in heartening numbers.

tip e. canoe's picture is down for me.
anyone else having problems?

ghostfaceinvestah's picture

AGW is the biggest hoax in human history, hard to believe it could happen in this day and age, but here it is.  The EPA move today was likely due to the fact that cap and trade is dying in Congress, those fools know damn well they will be voted out en masse if they keep up this crap.

Shameful's picture

Hoax's work because your average person is does not think for themselves.  It's shockingly easy to manipulate people if you are confident and present yourself in the right fashion.  Con men of all stripes (politicians and more hard working con men) know that a lot of people will never think for themselves until well after the con has played out.  Hell for an experiment I went and tried to convince random strangers at my university of all kinds of clap trap and many would agree after I had presented my "case".

Anonymous's picture

meh. not that big of a deal. cars and light-duty trucks have to have 35/MPG. not a horrible idea regardless of GW.

MUCH different than cap 'n tax.

Froggy's picture

I find it disturbing how this Administration consistently makes these bold and inappropriate power grabs whenever they sense that their position vis a vis their ability to convince the American people is threatened.  This move is such a non sequiter in light of recent events at the UEA-CRU. 

At the same time, I find these enviro-nutters to be the most hopelessly self absorbed group of hypocrites on the face of the Earth.  To show up at this Carbonhagen conference in 140 private jets and to use 1200 limousines during the course of the conference and thereby expending in a week the entire CO2 output of Morocco in 2006 is simply too ridiculous to comprehend.  Combine that with a massive snow storm bearing down on the US just as this thing kicks off is absolute proof that God exists and has a tremendous sense of humor.

faustian bargain's picture

snow in san francisco. WTF. it's frickin' cold out here in the bay area.

Shameful's picture

While I agree it is shocking the level of in your face crazy this is, it's not that much of a power grab.  Look at the Executive branch, it's been a de facto dictatorship for a while.  The prez can wage wars without a declaration of war, he may pass his own laws via regulating and taxing agencies, and he may interpret law (like hte court) by issuing signing statements, all the while claiming immunity to the judcial branch.  In our banana republic we elect a new dictator every few years and he wears a suit rather than a uniform.

Anonymous's picture

Hmm, they left off the most important greenhouse gas, the one that accounts for more than 90% of warming - water vapor. I guess the notion of having the EPA regulate water would have made the hypocrisy of this nonsense just a bit too obvious.

Anonymous's picture

The models still insist that clouds are a positive feedback, hopelessly flawed imo. When you look at the spaghetti graph of modeled outputs against reality it shows what a bunch of "flops" can accomplish. But hey, by all means give them more flops. Bigger GIGO is all the rage, as MBS securitization models can attest. We should call the modelers GIGOlos.

Anonymous's picture

I wonder when more emails will be released. Like Acorn, the videos just kept on coming.

I remain hopeful.

grunk's picture

And then, having regulated the earth, sea, and sky, and finding it to be profitable, on the Seventh Day, Lloyd Blankfein rested. 

Anonymous's picture

I just farted...bad. Am I in trouble with Obama and the EPA?

Anonymous's picture

Does this mean we can't perform CPR anymore?

Anonymous's picture

Does this mean we can't perform CPR anymore?

Mad Max's picture

This is so wildly and blatantly unconstitutional that I have a hard time believing it is starting.  Yet, it seems to be.  The so-called administration seems to be doing their best to re-create the conditions that lead to the French Revolution.  This is a good time to get as far away from DC and NYC as you can.

Anonymous's picture

If I can maneuver around the beauracracy I will stand to make alot of money in the future. Who would ever have thought being a lowly refrigeration mechanic would have such oppurtunities. You guys better keep those HFC's in your equipment or the EPA is coming for ya, just don't tell anyone about all the greenhouse gases China, India and Mexico spew into the atmosphere.

Margin Call's picture

Debating policy responses to climate issues is one thing, and I'm all for it. Cap and Trade? Benefits and outcome very debatable. The EPA move? A political one to be sure (although don't see how GS would benefit a la Cap and Trade, since regulation would just require emissions limitations outright which would benefit technology and infrastructure companies, not financial traders).

But pretending that the emails out of the UEA somehow throw into doubt all climate research, well that is really pushing it. I think skeptics are doing their cause a disfavour by going into an orgiastic frenzy that exposes political motives as their driving force beyond any genuine concern for the scientific method.

So climate change science has an element of uncertainty. Big surprise! What science doesn't? But just because we can't be 100% certain of the ultimate impact that we have on our climate doesn't mean we shouldn't be treading very, very carefully. Because the research and modelling point to some serious risks- one of the main ones being that we could be seriously fucking up our ability to thrive as a species on this planet (forget the damn polar bear, but that's a whole other story, don't get me started on modern environmentalism). Taking some short-term economic transition pain now is well worth avoiding the risk of major biosphere disruptions down the road. It's not religious dogma, it's logical risk mitigation.

As a species, we've been engineering and altering our biosphere for millenia now (hint: it started with agriculture, not the industrial revolution). So with a highly industrialized civilization with multiple billions of people, I'm now supposed to believe that GHC emissions are not doing anything to affect our climate system in one way or the other? The argument that climate changes are all "natural" and are not due to human activity is as religiously delusional as climate change activists are claimed to be: human activity is part of nature. Last time I checked, we were still animals living on planet earth. The only difference is that we've developed the self-awareness to at least try to analyze our relationship with our surroundings. Unfortunately, this has also given us a nice God complex that we live above and apart from our own world.

It is possible that climate changes are driven solely by sunspots. It's also very, very possible that recent climate changes are driven largely be human industrial activity. But science can never be 100% certain about either. But that is why, based on the huge body of research carried out, it makes the most sense to try to limit our GHC emissions as a civilization. If climate changes are driven by human industrial activity, then we avoid some serious problems. If climate changes are driven by sunspots or radiation shot at us by some nefarious extra-terrestrials hiding behind the moon, then we are fucked anyways no matter what we do. If we do nothing, then we run the risk of being fucked either way when we don't have to be.

Alright, sorry about the rant. Back to the EPA- I actually think this move points out that the US is planning to meet its GHC reduction targets through transportation (the EPA move came about to allow regulation of vehicle emissions). Reducing oil consumption is an easier political proposition than going to war with the coal lobby.




Mad Max's picture

Here is an excellent analysis of the climate emails:

As for this:

Back to the EPA- I actually think this move points out that the US is planning to meet its GHC reduction targets through transportation (the EPA move came about to allow regulation of vehicle emissions). Reducing oil consumption is an easier political proposition than going to war with the coal lobby.

I agree, but it would be a terrible path to follow.  For starters, it would probably be the final nail in the coffin for our auto industry.  I expect it would also be extremely inefficient in terms of the necessary investments (and wasted existing capital) relative to CO2 emissions.  It would be far smarter to clamp down on coal.

Margin Call's picture

Mad Max,

I completely agree that it isn't the best path to take. Unfortunately, politics is more often about the easy way out than the proper way out. Coal makes the most sense as a clampdown target- even apart from the GHC issue, you are talking about landscape destruction, mercury emissions and slurry spills.

The money going towards carbon capture and storage is one of the most glaring examples of political capture of science/R&D. I think it makes more sense to just let the coal plants run right now and devote all clean coal funding to alternative electricity sources- in the long run this will be more beneficial than blowing half the wad on CCS tech that probably won't work at any reasonable scale for another few decades if at all.

tip e. canoe's picture

"The money going towards carbon capture and storage is one of the most glaring examples of political capture of science/R&D."

follow the rockafella:

think jay is trying to make up for the mess his great granddaddy made or just trying to get a leg up on the next big skim?

Mad Max's picture

No argument here.

Unfortunately, politics is more often about the easy way out than the proper way out.

Yes, indeed.  If the US really wanted to limit carbon emissions, we could simply tax fossil fuels the way that European countries have long taxed petroleum.  It would also help to wean us from imported oil.  The absence of a serious proposal for such a simple and effective approach has made it clear to me that the politicians bandying GHG issues are not sincerely concerned about GHG emissions.

And I am not in the fairly large group saying climate change is a hoax.  There is clear evidence of warming in the polar regions and most mountainous regions.  There is also undeniable evidence that atmospheric levels of CO2 and other GHGs have increased.  The only "puzzle piece" remaining is a proven link between them.  As of right now the link is by far the most convincing theory, but it is not the only plausible theory, and in fact it seems very likely that warming will turn out to be a combination of man-made and natural processes.

Anyway, for anyone who wants climate to correct itself (a misnomer since climate is generally not stable over very long periods of time), keep hoping for a supergigantic volcanic eruption.  (And hope that same eruption is not an extinction level event.)

Hmmm.  Maybe we should force DC to be relocated to the center of the Yellowstone caldera.  And then sit back, wait, and hope.

tip e. canoe's picture

"Maybe we should force DC to be relocated to the center of the Yellowstone caldera. "

bucky fuller, whereever he is now, is probably thinking the exact same thing.

"Studying the whole thing, you find that all big government, all big politics, all big religion, almost all big business, would find it absolutely devastating to their activity to have humanity a success. "You poor kid, come on down, I'll get you a job at City Hall. Come on down, and I'll give you a turkey dinner; I'll get you into Heaven." So, I began to realize this also in big government tax hungry to take care of all its big bureaucracies. All those in bureaucracy want to have their jobs keep on. Neither government nor big business could see any way of putting meters between you and your energy income, between you and the wind, or between you and the sun. So I find that while it's clearly demonstrable that we really can get on with our energy income, that big government and big business are doing nothing serious about it whatsoever."

Don Smith's picture

The thing about CO2 is the supposed causation, as you mention.  Oregon's State Climatologist has stated that he believes that CO2 increases are the result of warming, not the cause.  In other words, like water vapor, CO2 can saturate warmer air better than colder air, so if the air temps go up a net 1-degree fahrenheit, CO2 in the atmosphere will go up accordingly. 

He points out that even in "An Inconvenient Truth," the chart that shows temp versus CO2 shows a lag between increases in CO2 and temperature.  Temps go up, and then 50-100 years later, CO2 shows a rise, not the other way around. 

It has also been posited that once CO2 reaches a certain PPM, its "warming" properties peter out.  Thus, if CO2's insulating effects cap out at 20 PPM, then going from 20 all the way to 50 has neglible impact on warming.  The theroy there is that we're already at that 50, say, and to cut CO2 to the point where it actually has an effect would require something like an 80% cut in CO2, which literally would stone-age us. 

The science is murky at best, and nothing short of an honest, transparent study will settle any arguments.

Mad Max's picture

This is very interesting.  Do you have a link, or even any keywords to enter into a search, to find more on this?

I have to say that on the CO2 side it should be straightforward to make a good estimate of how much oil, coal and natural gas has been burned since 1850 and to see how that matches up to the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels.