The masters of pseudo-science (The Sups and the EPA) want to regulate the amount of CO2 we can expend -- no more jogging for you!
Also here comes Cap and Trade in the back door

From the Washington Post:
EPA Proposes Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 17, 2009 12:10 PM


The Environmental Protection Agency today proposed regulating greenhouse gas emissions on the grounds that these pollutants pose a danger to the public's health and welfare.
In a statement issued at noon, EPA administrator Lisa P. Jackson said, "This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations."
She added, "This pollution problem has a solution -- one that will create millions of green jobs and end our country's dependence on foreign oil."
The move, coming almost exactly two years after the Supreme Court ordered the agency to examine whether emissions linked to climate change should be curbed under the Clean Air Act, marks a major shift in the federal government's approach to global warming.
Former President George W. Bush and his deputies opposed putting mandatory limits on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases for years on the grounds that it would harm the economy; Congress is considering legislation that would do so but it remains unclear whether it can pass the proposal and enact it into law in the near future.
Late last month EPA sent the White House a formal finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare; the Office of Management and Budget signed off on the determination Monday.
President Obama pledged to limit greenhouse gases as a candidate, but has urged Congress to send him a bill that would cap them and allow emitters to trade pollution allowances nationwide. Jackson, in a speech at the Aspen Environment Forum last month, emphasized that the administration still hopes the country will develop a legislative answer to the question of how best to limit greenhouse gases.
"The best solution, and I believe this in my heart, is to work with Congress to form and pass comprehensive legislation to deal with climate change," Jackson said. " We hope to avert a regulatory thicket where governments and businesses spend an inordinate amount of time fighting. We are not looking for a doomsday solution."
The proposed endangerment finding states, "In both magnitude and probability, climate change is an enormous problem."
The agency also includes a "cause or contribute" finding for cars, which implies that not only are greenhouse gases dangerous in general, but that such emissions from cars and trucks are reasonably likely to contribute to climate change.
Some business groups, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have warned that if the federal government regulates carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act it will end up imposing an enormous regulatory burden on small operations such as individual stores and even some office buildings.
EPA must hold a 60-day public comment period before finalizing its finding, and it would then have to look at regulating individual sectors of the economy, such as motor vehicles and power plants. Those two sectors account for roughly half of the nation's carbon dioxide emissions.
In a teleconference with reporters this week David Doniger, policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate center, said he did not think the agency would target small emitters of greenhouse gases if it began regulating emissions under the nearly 40-year old Clean Air Act.
"That is just not true," said Doniger. "EPA is able to focus on the big stuff, the big sources of global warming pollution."
Even before the formal announcement, experts predicted the decision would transform the federal government's role in regulating commercial operations across the country. Roger Martella, who served as EPA's general counsel under Bush and is now a partner at the firm Sidley Austin in Washington, issued a statement saying, "The proposed endangerment finding marks the official beginning of an era of controlling carbon in the United States."
"This means that EPA's mission of environmental protection will burst outside those bounds and place it on the stage as one of the most influential regulators of both energy use and the greater economy in the upcoming year," Martella added. "The proposal, once finalized, will give EPA far more responsibility than addressing climate change. It effectively will assign EPA broad authority over the use and control of energy, in turn authorizing it to regulate virtually every sector of the economy."
Many opponents of regulating carbon dioxide will now turn their attention to Congress, hoping to achieve a more modest cap on greenhouse gases through the legislative process than one that could be imposed by the federal government.
Fred Singer, who heads the Arlington, Va.-based Science and Environmental Policy Project and has repeatedly questioned the idea that humans contribute to climate change, said in a statement that the EPA proposal "is based on shoddy science and would impose a huge economic burden on American households . . . Congress must stop this unwarranted action by means of legislation, but without committing the same errors as EPA."

__________________
"I have no convictions ... I blow with the wind, and the prevailing wind happens to be from Vichy"

Current
Monika '74 450 SL
BrownHilda '79 280SL
FoxyCleopatra '99 Chevy Suburban
Scarlett 2014 Jeep Cherokee
Krystal 2004 Volvo S60
Gone
'74 Jeep CJ5
'97 Jeep ZJ Laredo
Rudolf ‘86 300SDL
Bruno '81 300SD
Fritzi '84 BMW
'92 Subaru
'96 Impala SS
'71 Buick GS conv
'67 GTO conv
'63 Corvair conv
'57 Nomad

Used Car Salesman Alert. "Here you have a problem. We have a solution. Buy this car and it has all the good things and lets not talk of any problems that can come along as a result of this purchase."

Sorry, when someone comes touting all the good and none of the bad, I run.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

It's about freaking time...

I somewhat agree with aklim's last post though. That statement does make it sound like the solution will be easy. It won't be, I pretty much guarantee you that. In fact I think we're already screwed and climate change will get really nasty pretty soon. We should have acted on greenhouse gas emissions like 30 years ago.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

I wonder if they'll be an exclusion for all the hot air coming out o the politicians mouths?

__________________
"It's normal for these things to empty your wallet and break your heart in the process."
2012 SLK 350
1987 420 SEL

Definitely won't be easy, but this announcement from the EPA puts Congress on notice. If they want to avoid having the EPA dictate emission standards under the Clean Air Act, a crude method at best, then they have to act. I'd like to see a straight carbon tax, none of this cap and trade crap, too much room for money and politics to alter the field.

As for Singer, the guy is a complete whore. His science is based on who has the deepest pockets.

__________________
On some nights I still believe that a car with the fuel gauge on empty can run about fifty more miles if you have the right music very loud on the radio. - HST

1983 300SD - 305000
1984 Toyota Landcruiser - 190000
1994 GMC Jimmy - 203000

https://media.giphy.com/media/X3nnss8PAj5aU/giphy.gif

I partially agree. If people think that it will be an overnight, made-for-tv-movie easy adjustment then they're dead wrong.
We can "go green" and all that stuff, but it's not going to happen overnight, and it's probably not going to create 5 million jobs tomorrow.

__________________
$60 OM617 Blank Exhaust Flanges
$110 OM606 Blank Exhaust Flanges
No merc at the moment

And it probably won't pay for itself. We will end up paying for it.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

I think I'd prefer a straight carbon tax too. But the thinking is that voters would not approve of another "tax". "Cap & trade" sounds more gentle, more market-like. To me that's retarded, but either method is better than nothing, assuming human-produced CO2 is a problem, and I believe it is based on the evidence that I've come across.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

Petroleum products aren't going away in a significant way anytime soon.


The Biofuel Bubble

A horde of startups have smart ideas. But the challenges are many, and the winners likely will be Shell, BP, DuPont, and other majors
By John Carey

BW Magazine
The Biofuel Bubble
April 27, 2009


It's a bold vision: Replace billions of gallons of gasoline not with ethanol from corn or other food crops but with biofuels made from plants, such as prairie grass in Tennessee pastures or algae percolating in Florida. Such a move would slash dependence on oil, create thousands of jobs, and reduce emissions that contribute to global warming. In the U.S., the idea has powerful political support. Congress has decreed that the country must be using 21 billion gallons of "advanced" biofuels a year by 2022. Washington is backing that goal with tax breaks, loan guarantees, and scores of millions of dollars in grants, with more support expected in upcoming energy bills. These inducements and the vast potential market have stimulated investments of more than $3 billion and spawned a new industry.

More than 200 companies, from 12-person startups to oil giants, are developing next-generation biofuels using a bewildering array of technologies. Pilot and demonstration plants are operating or are under construction from Florida to California. "We can have it all: more fuel, more food, and fewer carbon emissions," says John B. Howe, vice-president of Verenium (VRNM), a Cambridge (Mass.) company that makes ethanol from sugarcane waste at a demonstration plant in Jennings, La.

Yet behind the very real innovations and investments, the brash claims and the breathless headlines, lies an inconvenient truth. Replacing petroleum with biofuels is a tough business. Even as the industry develops, many of the companies—probably most—will not survive. "We've seen a venture capital-led bubble," says Alan Shaw, CEO of Codexis, a Redwood City (Calif.) manufacturer of enzymes used to make drugs, chemicals, and biofuels. "I cannot see how the small companies can build a business and still get a return to their original investors. The numbers just don't add up."

Nor will many Americans soon be filling their gas tanks with these next-generation fuels. Industry executives concede they'll fall far short of the mandated 2010 level of 100 million gallons of biofuels made from cellulosic materials such as prairie grass or cornstalks. Meeting the 2022 goal is also unlikely. It would require not only building hundreds of fuel factories—at a cost of $500 million or more each—but also surrounding each one with thousands of acres of land planted with energy crops such as prairie grass. "We're talking about a fairly substantial transformation of the rural economic landscape," says Jack Huttner, vice-president of DuPont Danisco Cellulosic Ethanol, a joint venture of Danisco and DuPont (DD) that is building a demonstration plant in Tennessee.
These difficulties don't mean advanced biofuels aren't coming, or that they won't play a crucial role in fighting climate change. But everything will happen more slowly than many venture capitalists say. And the probable winners will be those with deep pockets and patience, such as Royal Dutch Shell (RDS), BP (BP), DuPont, agriculture giant Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), or the rare startup with revenues from another business, such as making drugs. For the rest, the demonstration biorefineries now being built are more like high-stakes auditions than a step in the process of becoming commercial biofuels producers. "The business model that makes sense for most of us is demonstrating the technology and getting it into the hands of those who have balance sheets," says Bill Roe, CEO of biofuel producer Coskata in Warrenville, Ill. .........

More important, the laws of supply and demand mean that replacing a significant amount of gasoline with biofuels would drastically lower the demand for gas. That, in turn, would cause the price of gas to plunge, making biofuels less competitive. The 5% drop in gasoline use in the second half of 2008 (compared with the previous year) helped push down the average price at the pump from $4.14 per gallon to $1.74, dampening enthusiasm for biofuels. "Low oil prices have a numbing effect on consumers and their interest in this area," says David C. Aldous, CEO of Colorado's Range Fuels, which is building a plant in Soperton, Ga. Imagine what would happen if tens of billions of gallons of biofuel were to become available. The world could be awash in cheap oil and gas.

It has happened before. In the early 1980s, higher-mileage cars and an economic downturn sent petroleum prices swooning, killing off many renewable-energy efforts, including those supported by Big Oil. Avoiding that scenario today requires an additional policy step: raising the cost of using fossil fuels through taxes or limits on carbon dioxide emissions. "The major thing holding us back is the lack of a price on carbon," says Jim McMillan, a biofuels expert at the National Renewal Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colo.

The crucial need for putting a price on carbon emissions is also a reminder that the industry is still pretty much a government creation. "The reason why renewable fuels exist at all is because politicians have decided they meet policy objectives. The whole market is 100% political," says Jeff Passmore, executive vice-president of Ottawa-based Iogen, the first company to make ethanol from a cellulosic feedstock—in this case, wheat straw. Those policy objectives: reducing energy dependence, fighting climate change, helping farmers, and creating jobs. But government policy can be fickle. Philip New, head of biofuels for BP, isn't so much worried that advanced biofuel technology won't pan out as he is that "the world might lose its enthusiasm for supporting these technologies through the difficult interim years," he says. ...............


Producing 30 billion gallons of fuel takes 300 million or more tons of plant material. That's more than the total weight of cars and light trucks sold in the U.S. over the past 10 years. Growing this much cellulose would take at least 30 million acres of land. "I think the biggest problem for everybody is how are we going to grow, gather, store, and treat the biomass," says Brent Erickson, lobbyist for the Biotechnology Industry Organization.

Full article
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_17/b4128038014860.htm?chan=technology_technology+index+page_top+stories

Just because it's going to be hard doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue it.

I'd like to see a focus on producing biodiesel. Diesel is a much easier fuel to produce relative to gasoline, and has a more widespread usage. Wouldn't it be nice to see farming reassert itself as a profitable venture in this country? I would pay a small surcharge to buy bio over dino diesel, if it was available, at least until the cost of manufacturing was recouped. And I would definitely vote for tax money to be used toward biodiesel production. (flame suit on)

__________________
On some nights I still believe that a car with the fuel gauge on empty can run about fifty more miles if you have the right music very loud on the radio. - HST

1983 300SD - 305000
1984 Toyota Landcruiser - 190000
1994 GMC Jimmy - 203000

https://media.giphy.com/media/X3nnss8PAj5aU/giphy.gif

Consider the source. What other wool is this source going to try to pull over my eyes? If I can't trust this source, why should I believe a word it says?

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

I agree with what you have said. We should be putting money into biofuels especially bio-D. .However, to put a crushing burden on mostly the middle of the country in the form of Cap and Trade or a high carbon tax, at a time when companies are struggling to stay in business is ludicrous. It will only make goods produced in places like China even cheaper when compared to American made goods and will cause electrical rates and fuel prices to go way up. Once the economy is strong again, we can revisit some of these ideas. Can't we promote biofuels without crushing taxes on dino fuels?

__________________
"I have no convictions ... I blow with the wind, and the prevailing wind happens to be from Vichy"

Current
Monika '74 450 SL
BrownHilda '79 280SL
FoxyCleopatra '99 Chevy Suburban
Scarlett 2014 Jeep Cherokee
Krystal 2004 Volvo S60
Gone
'74 Jeep CJ5
'97 Jeep ZJ Laredo
Rudolf ‘86 300SDL
Bruno '81 300SD
Fritzi '84 BMW
'92 Subaru
'96 Impala SS
'71 Buick GS conv
'67 GTO conv
'63 Corvair conv
'57 Nomad

Unlikely. Higher prices is the only thing that will make most people try to conserve. Now the taxes don't have to be "crushing". They should be reasonable, but there will always be some whining regardless of how small the tax is. An economic downturn is a poor excuse to do nothing. With that kind of thinking we'll always follow the tried-and-failed reactionary/short-sighted approach - panic, get outraged and call for more drilling when oil prices are high, then when they drop we just get comfortable and move on to other things until oil prices rise up again. We really need to put a real price on carbon, not just based on economic supply and demand but also based on environmental damage & national security concerns. That will create a more stable market for alternatives which is exactly what's been lacking.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

This is our best bet to replace the lost manufacting jobs in the midwest.


Sounds quite doable to me. The fall in the the price of oil can be offest by taxes like Europe does.

While this industry is government driven now, if fuel went up and stayed at $4+ a gallon private industry would quickly move in.

Combine this with solar, water, wind, nuclear, and coal and we could be on to something.

__________________
1999 SL500
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200

Oh great. Enlarge the govt waste. If they really cared abut conservation, why not have the tax system based on consumption? Spend more, pay more.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow