What is Simple Steps?

It’s a report detailing the simple ways that Americans can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 1 billion tons or 15 percent. The report is called “Simple and Inexpensive Actions Could Reduce Global Warming Emissions by One Billion Tons.”

The United States is the world’s second-largest emitter of global warming pollution, currently pumping approximately 7 billion tons of heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere every year. Yet, if Americans adopted a series of simple and inexpensive emissions-reducing measures, the U.S. could avoid 1 billion tons of emissions annually and save money.

How can the U.S. reduce emissions?

The biggest opportunity for reducing emissions is in addressing household energy (38 percent), followed by transportation (29 percent), diet and food waste (17 percent) and recycling and responsible consumption (16 percent).

For example, if every American who travels by plane three times a year or more were to fly once less per year, about 125 million metric tons of emissions could be averted.

Consuming paper and plastics more responsibly – using double-sided printing, reducing catalog subscriptions and buying less bottled water could help shave another 60 million metric tons of emissions.

Who would this affect?

Households that use the smallest amount of electricity would see an average increase of 9%. Those customers make up 58% of the DWP’s residential rate-payers.

Households who use more power would see an average increase of 16% to 19%, and households who use the most power would face hikes in their electric bills of 24% to 28%

Businesses would see increases in the average bill ranging from 20% to 26%.

When will this go into effect?

The mayor has been talking for weeks about the need for the DWP to charge more. Monday was the first day his team showed its estimate of the effects on consumers of the increase, which is scheduled to be phased in over a full year starting next month.

Why?

The proposed increases would ensure that the Department of Water and Power meets the goal of securing 20% of its energy from renewable sources by Dec. 31.

The rate hike would address the Department of Water and Power’s failure to collect enough money to cover the cost of existing renewable energy initiatives and the fluctuating price of coal and natural gas.

The increased revenue would help pay for new environmental initiatives, including more aggressive conservation programs and a solar initiative designed to create 16,000 jobs.

What is the AARP?

The American Association of Retired People, AARP, operates as a non-profit, nonpartisan membership organization advocate for people age 50 and over. AARP is one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the United States, selling insurance, investment funds and other financial products to its members. AARP is one of the largest membership organizations in the United States with over 40 million members.

Why do they support the bill?

While AARP does not have an official position on climate change science, the organization’s “primary interest” in supporting the legislation is “protecting consumers from having to pay a disproportionate or excessive share of the cost of any approach Congress determines will best limit carbon emissions and encourage alternative electric generation.”

How does it work?

Under the Cantwell-Collins bill, an emissions cap would be placed on “upstream” suppliers of fossil fuels.  All allowances would be auctioned, rather than distributed for free, with 75% of auction proceeds rebated to consumers through a per-capita dividend. 

AARP said this bill “offers a uniquely pro-consumer approach for addressing climate change on an economy-wide basis.” 

Where will it be implemented?

PC Power Management is being rolled out to Ford computer users across the U.S. this month. The program will be implemented in Ford operations around the world later in the year.

Why?

By reducing PC power consumption, Ford also stands to save $1.2 million annually on power costs and reduce its carbon footprint by an estimated 16,000 to 25,000 metric tons annually when the system is fully implemented.

Ford discovered that as many as 60 percent of its’ PC users haven’t shut off their computers at the end of the business day, resulting in wasted energy. PC Power management will enable Ford to manage PC power consumption more efficiently while minimizing interruptions during the working day as a result of software updates.

How does it work?

Under a new program called PC Power Management, the power settings on Windows laptops and desktop computers are centrally controlled to reduce energy waste and optimize software updates. A managed shutdown of computer systems not in use, especially overnight and on weekends, further reduces energy use.

Ford’s ongoing commitment:

Ford’s energy reduction programs have earned it the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s coveted 2010 ENERGY STAR Award for the fifth consecutive year. In 2008, Ford improved energy efficiency in the U.S. by 5 percent resulting in savings of approximately $16 million. Since 2000, Ford’s U.S. facilities have improved energy efficiency by nearly 35 percent.

What does the OMB do?
The White House Office of Management and Budget assesses major regulations proposed by the EPA and other federal agencies.

When will the rule be ready?
OMB’s completion of its review suggests that the proposed EPA rule will be released shortly. The three source categories that would be newly subject to the reporting rule include fugitive and vented emissions from oil and gas facilities; geologic sequestration sites; and sources of fluorinated GHGs.

Why did OMB review it?
Federal law requires the OMB to study the feasibility on proposed regulations. The OMB’s primary role is to assist the President in overseeing the preparation of the federal budget. In helping to formulate the President’s spending plans, the OMB evaluates the effectiveness of agency programs, policies, and sets funding priorities.

Related OMB activity:
In a separate but related development, OMB has also begun its review of the final version of EPA’s first-ever tailpipe GHG standards for passenger cars and light duty trucks. These standards, proposed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in September 2009, would fulfill an agreement negotiated last spring between the Obama Administration, the major automakers, and the State of California.  To find out more about national tailpipe standards, check out last week’s Dave’s corner extra blog on opposition to the Murkowski resolution.

Who?

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance) represents 11 automakers including Chrysler, Ford, General Motors and Toyota. The United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), often known as the United Auto Workers, one of the largest and most diverse unions in North America with about 513,000 active members and more than 575,000 retired members in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico.

Why?

Both Alliance and UAW warned that the resolution would interfere with EPA’s plans to issue tailpipe GHG standards for passenger vehicles, which would in turn prompt California and other states to use their own authority to set GHG standards at the state level.  Last May, California agreed not to enforce its own tailpipe GHG standards in exchange for a promise by EPA and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to promulgate new and more stringent GHG and fuel economy standards. 

The UAW letter, called the Murkowski resolution a “misguided effort” that would “unravel the historic agreement on one national standard for fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions for light duty vehicles that was negotiated by the Obama administration last year.”

For more information:

Both letters to Senator Murkowski are available at the websites below:
The UAW letter
The Alliance letter

Why are they doing this?

The fuel regulation, established by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), requires that all ocean-going vessels within 24 nautical miles of the California coastline use a cleaner-burning diesel fuel, called lower-sulfur marine distillates, rather than heavy-fuel oil.

Impact:

Operating costs:

CARB estimates that complying with the regulation would typically add $30,000 to a California port visit, roughly 1 percent of the typical fuel costs for a vessel crossing the Pacific Ocean. This added cost along with concerns that the cleaner fuel could increase wear and tear on ship engines are believed to be the primary drivers to this change in route.

Ships routing:

Just after the regulations went into effect last July, ships that normally would have approached the harbor along the coast, inside the Santa Barbara Channel began traveling south of the Channel Islands.

The alternative route allows the ships to log fewer miles within the 24-mile zone where the more expensive fuel is required. Up to 50 percent of the ships are using this alternative route compared to just 7 percent prior to the new regulation.

Naval activities:

The Navy has also been coping with the changing traffic patterns. The new route has sharply increased the number of commercial ships traveling within the the Navy’s Point Mugu Sea Range.
The Navy is working with the Marine Exchange to provide ships with timely information so they can avoid areas where tests or training are occurring. While only one exercise has been delayed so far by shipping traffic, the Navy worries that as the economy improves and traffic increases, holdups may become more frequent.

During deliberations over the regulation, the Navy warned the California Air Resources Board that should the rule pass, shipping companies were likely to use an “avoidance route” through its range.

Why did they decline?

A combination of factors including high gasoline prices, a slow economy, and a cool summer are believed to have contributed to this decline.

What is the impact?

The 3% reduction is the largest year-over-year drop that the EPA has recorded since it began tracking greenhouse gas emissions in 1990.

The 2009 decline will likely be even steeper. The federal Energy Information Administration reported in March that carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels, the major driver of American greenhouse gas emissions, fell more than 6% from 2008 to 2009.

What’s the trend for future GHG emissions?

Annual U.S. emissions remain 14% higher than they were in 1990, the EPA reports. When economic growth picks up again, emissions will grow again according to Energy Information Administration forecasts.

The EPA analysis suggests emissions growth will slow in the future even without new climate policy, partly as low-emissions energy sources such as wind and solar power grew as a share of the national electric mix. Overall, U.S. emissions are continuing a steady decline as a percentage of both population and gross domestic product.

More information:

Check out EPA’s draft report, “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2008.” The draft report is open for 30 days of public comment.

What happened?

The Hungarian government sold two million CER offset credits to an undisclosed energy trading firm, despite the fact these carbon offsets were retired on behalf of Hungarian companies as part of their obligations under the EU emissions trading scheme (ETS).

Retired means taking the offsets out of circulation permanently.

The Impact:

Europe’s carbon market descended into chaos as fears over “recycled” carbon credits sparked a collapse in the price of Certified Emission Reductions (CER) from €12 to less than €1 a ton, forcing two exchanges to suspend trading of the UN-backed credits. The term recycled is a euphemism for an offset that is counted twice and thus not a true carbon offset.

The crisis was triggered after the emergence that a number of CERs were controversially resold by the Hungarian government and later discovered on the BlueNext exchange in France. Two European exchanges suspended trading of CERs amid fears more carbon credits may end up being illegally reused within the EU.

Attempting to restore confidence in carbon markets:

The International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) warned only last week that the Hungarian government’s reselling of retired CERs could dangerously undermine confidence in the market. It also advised that any government that recycles credits should attach a letter of “due diligence” confirming they have been recycled and cannot be surrendered in the EU.

Hungary made it clear when it sold the permits that they couldn’t be used again in the EU system, the country’s Environment Ministry said today in a statement. There may have been “fraudulent conduct” by a dealer if the credits ended up on EU markets, the statement said.

Pressure is now mounting on the EU to introduce new legislation to ban the practice of CER recycling with experts predicting the price of CERs will not recover until recycled credits are removed from the market.

Background

Carbon offsets are a somewhat abstract concept. Bottom-line, a carbon offset buyer is purchasing the right to emit carbon because someone else either didn’t emit as much as allowed or created a project that avoids emitting carbon. Carbon offsets only make a true impact upon the environment if they are validated by independent third parties and deemed to be real, additional, and verified. Once the offset has been retired, they can no longer be reused or sold. Tracking the status of all carbon offsets is the job of carbon registries.

Why does it matter?

Transportation emissions have soared in the past three decades as global trade has grown by leaps and bounds, especially long-haul shipments of goods from Asia. The container ship trade grew eightfold between 1985 and 2007.

What’s the benefit?

Traveling slower delivers a great opportunity to lower emissions without a huge leap in innovation. It saves precious research dollars.

What are the drawbacks?

Customers have to factor in extra time for delivery, which can be problematic for time-sensitive products like fashion or electronics, said Mr. Damas of Drewry Shipping.

Seems like a simple concept, why haven’t ocean carriers acted earlier?

Super slow shipping involves adjustments. Maersk had to prove that slow speeds would not damage ship engines in order to maintain engine warranties that did not cover slower travel.

Maersk has also shouldered the labor costs of having crews at sea for longer periods and added two ships on its Germany-to-China route to maintain scheduled deliveries. But those expenses were canceled out by decreased fuel costs, it said.

What are scope 3 emissions?

Scope 3 emissions are activities within a company’s supply chain (manufacturing, transportation, etc.) which aren’t owned by the company. Scope 3 emissions include other impacts from a consumer using the product.

Why are scope 3 emissions vital to supply chain reporting?

Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University said in a 2008 report that two-thirds of U.S. industries would overlook 75 percent of GHG emissions if they neglect reporting on Scope 3 emissions.

WRI says that although many companies measure the emissions from their own operations and electricity use, the Scope 3 Standard will, for the first time, allow companies to look at the impact of their corporate value chains, including outsourced activities, supplier manufacturing, and the use of the products they sell. Road testers of the Product Standard will measure the climate change impact of products ranging from magazines, food and jeans to computers, wind turbines and steel. Scope 3 emissions allows a company to identify up and down stream cost saving opportunities and also helps the company decrease its risk exposure due to future spikes in the price of fossil fuels.

Who is participating in the testing?

Sixty corporations are now measuring the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of their products and supply chains by testing a new global framework that is part of the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative. Companies participating in the test drive represent 17 countries and more than 20 sectors, including Coca-Cola, Ford Motor, Kraft Foods, Lenovo and Levi Strauss.

How can you measure the life-cycle of a product?

Developed by the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), the two new GHG Protocol standards, the Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard (PDF) and the Scope 3 (Corporate Value Chain) Accounting and Reporting Standard, provide methods to account for emissions associated with individual products across their life-cycles and of corporations across their value chains.

Why develop standards now?

The testing process is expected to provide real-world feedback to ensure the standards can be implemented by companies and organizations in a variety of sectors, sizes, and geographic areas around the world.

The draft standards were developed over the last year through a global, collaborative multi-stakeholder process, with participation from over 1,000 volunteer representatives from industry, government, academia, and non-governmental organizations. The road testing process will provide real-world feedback to ensure the standards can be practically implemented by companies and organizations from a variety of sectors, sizes, and geographic areas around the world. The final standards are scheduled to be published in December 2010.

Are the companies themselves asking for regulatory standards?

Jonathan Lash, president of WRI, said, “We are encouraged by the overwhelming response from the private sector seeking to road test the new standards. There were more than 120 applications across a broad array of sectors and regions worldwide. The road testing will provide critical input in ensuring that the standards generate credible and meaningful data for business and government decision makers, while considering the practical challenges that businesses and programs will face during implementation.”

Measurement

Sainsbury measures and reports its total tons of CO2, including Green Purchase. It also reports total Green Purchase Electricity. They measure and report energy efficiency of their supermarkets kg CO2/m2. Through their measurement, they found that refrigeration accounts for 40% of their total supermarket energy consumption.

Innovation

By September 2008, 20% of their online deliveries will be made using electric vans. Despite a delay to this program they expect to have 70 electric vehicles for their online fleet, which will deliver approximately 60% of the online orders.

Reduction Goals

To reduce their CO2 emissions per square meter by 25% by 2012 against a 2005/06 baseline. Reduce the distance their trucks and suppliers travel by 5 million km by 2010. Reduce CO2 per case of product by 15% by 2012 against a 2005/06 baseline. Sainsbury’s has pledged to switch all its refrigerators to CO2 refrigeration technology in all stores by 2030 and has already earmarked 135 stores for conversion by 2014, which is expected to cut the company’s carbon footprint by about one third.

Operational efficiency

In 2008/09 Sainsbury’s energy efficiency program resulted in an absolute reduction in carbon of 10,786 tons of CO2. This has been achieved even with significant growth in sales and retail space. They have now achieved a reduction of over 9% in kg of CO2 per m2 of sales area against the 2005/06 baseline. Saving energy and CO2 means operational savings!

In addition to it’s climate commitment, below are a few highlights of Sainsbury activities.
According to the quarterly CR report, Sainsbury’s has been recognized by several organizations for its commitment to sustainability. As an example, the UK retailer was rated number 1 out of 59 global retailers in the World Wildlife Foundation Sustainable Palm Oil Buyers Scorecard. Sainsbury’s reports it was the first retailer to buy sustainable palm oil last year, and it is committed to only using sustainable palm oil in its own brand products by 2014.

The supermarket chain received an “A rating” in Consumer Focus’ “Green to the Core?” survey in November 2009, which assesses supermarkets’ performance on making green shopping easier.

Sainsbury’s is also recognized as the UK’s largest retailer of fairtrade goods and leading major retailer in the Marine Conservation Society’s retailer survey.

The retailer launched a new campaign “make the difference day — love your leftovers” on January 23rd, to provide customers with free plastic food containers, helping to make it easier for people to use leftover food.

The UK based Climate Trust tested a pilot carbon label with three consumer products. Soon after, Australia announced it would implement the Carbon Trust label. Sweden, Japan, and Taiwan promptly followed in announcing their own carbon labeling programs.

Taiwan’s new labeling program, from the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA), will apply to PET-bottled beverages, candles, CDs and cookies. The program may help speed the acceptance of carbon labels worldwide, as many Taiwanese products are also exported. Taiwanese EPA Deputy Minister Chiu Wen-yen believes a labeling system at home should put Taiwan at the forefront of gaining trade opportunities.

The only problem is that each country has implemented a program that differs in scope of products, how the footprint is measured, and overall program goals.

For instance, supermarket food in the UK will be labeled to show its carbon footprint, country of origin, and animal welfare standards as part of the government’s new food strategy for the next 20 years.

Sweden calls for labels listing the carbon dioxide emissions associated with the production of foods. It expects to cut the nation’s emissions from food production by 20 to 50 percent with carbon labeling.

In Japan, about 30 companies said they would voluntarily start carrying carbon footprint labels on food packaging and other products beginning in April 2009.

Will these country programs simplify or complicate consumer acceptance and understanding of the products’ carbon footprint?

I foresee these country initiatives potentially conflicting with ongoing international standardization efforts including ISO 14000, GHG Protocol and consumer brands labeling efforts.

Stay tuned as I am confident we have not heard the last carbon labeling.

What is the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association?

The organization was established in 1898. The stated mission of the association was to increase profit opportunities for cattle and beef producers by enhancing the business climate and building consumer demand. The association has always been focused on two activities since its’ inception, legislative lobbying and industry-wide communication through a national newsletter.

What is their stance or objection to the EPA’s endangerment finding?

The NCBA believes that the EPA Endangerment Finding may lead to:

1. Cattle operations required to purchase permits to emit greenhouse gases, forcing the closure of many cattle operations.
2. EPA climate regulations would harm the profitability of large farms.
3. Activist groups suing large and small businesses, including cattle ranches over GHG emissions.

Citing EPA statistics, the association notes that 2007 agriculture GHG emissions comprised of less than 6 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions in Tg CO2 Eq, while land use, land use change, and forestry activities resulted in a net carbon soil sequestration of about 14.9 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

However, Nathan Pelletier of Dalhousie University in Canada said that while beef only accounts for 30 percent of meat consumption in the developed world, it’s responsible for 78 percent of the emissions. A single kilogram of beef produces 16 kilograms of equivalent CO2 emissions. That’s four times higher than pork and more than ten times more than a kilogram of poultry.

The California Air Resource Board approved in April the nation’s first low-carbon fuel standard. It establishes new rules that will require producers, refiners, and importers of gasoline and diesel to reduce the carbon footprint of their fuel by 10 percent in the next decade. The regulation will go into effect in 2011.

The low-carbon fuel standard calculates the impact of fuels throughout their lifecycle and takes into account emissions generated from production, transportation, and ultimately, its combustion.

The corn based ethanol fuel source is penalized because of the indirect effect of growing corn for energy on land that would normally be used to grow crops for food.

Under the indirect land use measurement, corn-based ethanol does not meet California’s low-carbon fuel standard. Essentially, it would be banned from use in the state. The ethanol industry has called the rule unfair and based on shoddy science.

The industry feels that domestic ethanol has been singled out and regulations will make it difficult to meet the federal Renewable Fuel Standard. The standard requires 36 billion gallons of biofuels blended into the U.S. fuel supply per year in 2022. The two industry groups argue that California’s low-carbon fuel standard will also change how corn is farmed and how ethanol is produced all over the country.

Ethanol derived from sugarcane — a major export from Brazil — meets CARB’s standards. California revised its ethanol blend requirements, which will push it from 6 percent to 10 percent ethanol by 2010.

In doing research for this story I ran across this announcement from nearly two years ago. GM plans to make half of its U.S. cars running on ethanol by 2012, AP reports (via Reuters). Speaking at the Chicago auto show, GM North American President Troy Clarke said the company will have 11 ethanol-capable cars on the market in 2008 and 15 in 2009. GM CEO Rick Wagoner called for 15,000 new ethanol stations in the country.

1. An international climate agreement. Although unsatisfactory to many, the Copenhagen agreement between China, India, Brazil and the US was crafted. Will the four nations follow up on their agreement by meeting their February 2010 commitments?

An International climate agreement should address the following issues:
Developed nations commit to quantified economy-wide emissions targets for 2020
Developing nations implement mitigation actions.
Funding from developed nations to provide new and additional resources, including forestry and investments through international institutions, approaching $30 billion. 2012 should be marked with balanced allocation between adaptation and mitigation.

2. Federal Climate Legislation or Rules. At this point, it’s unclear if Congress will be successful in creating federal climate laws. It appears that Congressional climate legislation is the preferred option by business and industry. However, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is exercising its authority under the Clean Air Act. But the Cattle Growers Association has already challenged the EPA and likely more lawsuits will come. Bottom line is the U.S. businesses need clear climate reduction goals in order to fund and implement their strategies.

3. State leadership. California is an exemplary state that created a low carbon fuel standard and carbon scheme.

The Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) requires fuel providers to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels sold in the state. An executive order was adopted directing the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to increase California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard from 20 to 33 percent by 2020. The northeastern states of Regional EGGI have signed a memorandum to adopt California’s low carbon fuel standards. This standard is already under challenge by an ethanol fuel industry group.

The carbon scheme would cap emissions of large emitters including power plants, refineries, cement plants, and other big factories at 15% below today’s levels by 2020. The CARB is required to adopt the cap-and-trade regulation by January 1, 2011. The rule will go into effect January 1, 2012.

Here’s my take on the key areas for the negotiations:

Binding emissions reduction targets for developed nations

The world (both developed and developing nations) is looking to the United States to set emission reduction targets. President Obama has stated he is willing to set provisional emission reduction targets. But will the President’s reduction goals deliver the commitment the world is looking for?

Emission reduction targets for developing nations

Developing nations have made climate reduction promises but are unwilling to commit to binding reduction targets until the U.S. and developed nations have done so. India and China are the key nations in this discussion because they are listed as developing nations but represent the #1 and #3 spot for global greenhouse gas emitters.

Funding clean technology deployment to developing nations- “Show me the money”

Developing nations say that funding from developed nations for adaptation and mitigation of climate change should reach $100 billion a year by 2020.

Extend Kyoto agreement or develop a new climate agreement

Developing nations want to keep the two-track negotiation mechanism established in the Bali Action Plan which states developed countries should set emissions reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol. But will these negotiations produce a global climate agreement? The will seems to be present, however, it comes down to the willingness of developed and developing nations to give and take. So far, they are entrenched in their respective positions.

Say tuned to Net Green News for the latest updates.

What today’s announcement means:

A federal government entity finds that greenhouse gases threaten human health and the environment. Six gases are included in the findings: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafloride.

How did the EPA come to this conclusion?

Science overwhelmingly shows greenhouse gas concentrations at unprecedented levels due to human activity. And the EPA finds that greenhouse gas emissions from on-road vehicles contribute to that threat.

The findings do not impose any emission reduction requirements, but allow the EPA to finalize the greenhouse gas standards proposed for new light-duty vehicles, which would reduce millions of tons of emissions and conserve nearly 2 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of these vehicles.

What today are the implications of the announcement?

Timing- The EPA chose to release its findings on the first day of the Copenhagen Climate Conference. It is thought that this announcement, along with the President’s support of provisional targets, will give the U.S. greater clout in the international climate negotiations.

Pressure on Congress - As mentioned in last week’s episode, the EPA’s action is meant to put the pressure on Congress, especially the Senate, to enact climate legislation. It worked.
In response, Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) is telling his Republican colleagues they should back a climate bill so that Congress, not the EPA, defines the rules on national emissions.

Press reaction - Although the EPA did not mention new regulations, national newspapers clearly thought this announcement was laying the foundation for future greenhouse gas regulations.

Please stay tuned to NGN as we’ll be watching, reporting and commenting on all the action at Copenhagen!

What is the EPA?

The Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for protecting human health and the environment. They do this by writing and enforcing regulations based on laws passed by Congress.

Why would the EPA issue GHG regulations when Congress has not yet passed a climate bill?

The EPA is concerned that the U.S. cannot afford to wait for Congress to pass climate legislation. As of now, they are simply taking the necessary precautions that will grant them the right to issue GHG emission rules in the event that Congress fails. According to a ruling in April 2007, the Supreme Court found greenhouse gases to be an air pollutant covered under the Clean Air Act. And the Clean Air Act gives the EPA the authority to regulate anything that undermines air quality.

What is the current status of EPA’s activity on this issue?

The EPA has issued an Endangerment Finding that acknowledges climate change as a significant threat to public health and welfare because excess amounts of greenhouse gas emissions that are changing the climate are also adversely affecting human health.

The EPA has sent its final proposal of the Endangerment Finding to the White House and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
If the White House and OMB approve the proposal then the EPA can issue GHG rules and regulations.

What is the scope of this Endangerment finding and EPA’s potential ruling?

The OMB has up to 90 days to review the proposal, but the EPA would like a decision sooner.

In 2007, the Supreme Court also asked the EPA to evaluate whether cars and trucks contribute to greenhouse gas pollution. Along with the final endangerment finding, the EPA also sent to OMB the agency’s conclusion as to the extent to which cars and trucks cause or contribute to that pollution. Such a finding would allow the federal government to regulate tailpipe emissions by increasing vehicle mileage requirement.

More Information can be found at the EPA’s website.

Who conducted the study?

The Institute for Policy Integrity, New York University School of Law

What were the findings?

The results of the survey showed surprising consensus on some questions but continued debate on others. These are a few of the results shared in the executive summary:

97.9% agreed that placing a price on carbon through a tax or cap and trade system will increase incentives for energy efficiency and the development of lower carbon energy production.

92.3% agreed that most of the environmental and economic effects from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would be felt by future generations.

91.6% preferred market based mechanisms, such as a carbon tax or cap and trade system rather than controlled regulation.

84% agreed that the environmental effects of excessive greenhouse gas emissions, posed a significant risk to important sectors in the US and global economies.

80.6% preferred auctioning carbon allowances rather than freely distributing allowances.

86% believed that agriculture would be negatively impacted.

You can download the entire report here.

Sources:
Policy Integrity
Environmental Leader