Opinion: Waiting To Exhale On Clean Air Act

While we’ve covered EPA’s recent moves into expanded regulation of water rights, (read the story ) the agency is making waves on another front with the Clean Air Act. In December, EPA ruled that carbon dioxide (CO2, you know, the stuff we exhale) is a dangerous pollutant and therefore subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. C02 was among five other greenhouse gases in the finding, including methane — so watch out cattle folks.

Of course, EPA stated they intend to only go after the largest polluters, which emit 25,000 tons or more of CO2 per year. There is one catch in that the Clean Air Act states caps could kick in at 250 tons annually. Lawsuits will be filed and judges will be forced to interpret the law, which says nothing about 25,000 tons of C02 emissions.

Weighty Consequences

Environmental groups praised the EPA’s endangerment finding because it is a bold move to curb greenhouse emissions, even if it will have little impact on total global emissions due to what China and India are spewing into the air. But, aside from showing that we care about the planet, what are some of the possible consequences of concluding CO2 is a pollutant?

According to the Heritage Foundation, 85% of the U.S. economy runs on fossil fuels that emit CO2; so in effect, this move will be equivalent to imposing an economy-wide tax on businesses. Those taxes will be passed on to you and me. The effect of CO2 regulations could lead to a cumulative loss in gross domestic product (GDP) of $7 trillion by 2029, with some years exceeding $600 billion. Early years could see jumps in energy costs of 30% and job losses exceeding 800,000 as the economy is shocked by these regulations.

Remember the President said electricity rates would “necessarily skyrocket” under his energy plan. By the way, “cap-and-trade” legislation is stuck in congress, and some believe it will likely stay there. That doesn’t really matter now, as EPA’s endangerment finding essentially will have the same impact through top-down regulation rather than legislation.

Worth It?

Some argue these steps to curb greenhouse gases are necessary to save the planet, even if it does cripple the economy. They may be right. I am just a simple person, breathing in and “out” — whoops — and going about my business. So like you, I have to rely on what the “experts” tell me. You see in the media that there is no more need to debate global warming because there is a consensus among scientists that it is a fact. The U.N. Climate Report said man-made global warming is real. Fifty-two scientists were involved with that report. Of course, 700 scientists from around the world have voiced their dissent of that very report. Hmm…