Bush and leaders of the G8 take shovels to plant trees. They agreed to cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2050. (Photo by KIMIMASA MAYAMA/AFP/Getty Images)
by Frank James
In a move that shouldn't surprise anyone, the Bush Administration decided it wanted no part of regulating the greenhouse gases most scientific experts believe contribute to global warming.
The EPA decision took the form of a 588-page document issued by the Environmental Protection Agency in which the EPA declined to take the vital step of declaring greenhouse gases unhealthy to the public.
If the EPA had done so, the agency would have been required by law to regulate greenhouse gases. Last year, the Supreme Court said the EPA had the authority to make such regulations if it determined that such gases were harmful to Americans' health.
Even though Bush has publicly accepted the premise that humans are contributing to global warming, his administration has opposed such regulations on the grounds that the U.S. economy could potentially be bogged down if the EPA were required to sign off on thousands or more projects and activities across the nation that influenced greenhouse gases.
The Bush administration's view on new EPA rules also mirrors its objections to the Kyoto Protocol; that the global warming problem is by definition a world-wide problem and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for the U.S. to burden its economy with rules and costs to fight global warming if developing nations like China and India weren't similarly constrained.
So Bush's EPA essentially punted, leaving it to a future president and Congresses to determine how the EPA should proceed. In lieu of making regulations, the EPA issued a document that, among other things, merely sums up the objections it heard from across the administration to possible regulations.
In a letter introducing the document, EPA administrator Stephen Johnson, explained the administration's position:
EPA's analyses leading up to this ANPR have increasingly raised questions of such importance that the scope of the agency's task has continued to expand. For instance, it has become clear that if EPA were to regulate greenhouse gas emissions frommotor vehicles under the Clean Air Act, then regulation of smaller stationary sources that also emit GHGs - such as apartment buildings, large homes, schools, and hospitals - could also be triggered. One point is clear: the potential regulation of greenhouse gases under any portion of the Clean Air Act could result in an unprecedented expansion of EPA authority that would have a profound effect on virtually every sector of the economy and touch every household in the land.
This ANPR reflects the complexity and magnitude of the question of whether and how greenhouse gases could be effectively controlled under the Clean Air Act. This document summarizes much of EPA's work and lays out concerns raised by other federal agencies during their review of this work. EPA is publishing this notice today because it is impossible to simultaneously address all the agencies' issues and respond to our legal
obligations in a timely manner.
I believe the ANPR demonstrates the Clean Air Act, an outdated law originally enacted to control regional pollutants that cause direct health effects, is ill-suited for the task of regulating global greenhouse gases. Based on the analysis to date, pursuing this course of action would inevitably result in a very complicated, time-consuming and, likely, convoluted set of regulations. These rules would largely pre-empt or overlay existing programs that help control greenhouse gas emissions and would be relatively ineffective at reducing greenhouse gas concentrations given the potentially damaging effect on jobs and the U.S. economy.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Just like when Chritine Whitman proclaimed the air was safe at ground zero..now look at the results! Thousands of brave people sick from inhailing toxic air. So now our great president decides that the already failing economy is far more important than the American peoples overall health! This guy is nuts!
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | July 11, 2008 2:58 PM
Even though Bush has publicly accepted the premise ...the U.S. economy could potentially be bogged down
I don't know how the U.S. economy could be any more bogged down than it is after seven plus years of this nitwit's administration. There is not one aspect of the U.S. that is better today than it was in 2000. I am afraid that McCain will be more of the same.
Posted by: bill | July 11, 2008 3:11 PM
I have to also add, by looking at the photo accompanying this article, Bush doesnt even know how to hold a shovel for goodness sakes!! This guy is just one big loon!
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | July 11, 2008 3:40 PM
How do these people look themselves in the mirror every day? EPA- Money for nothing.
Posted by: Liberal and Proud | July 11, 2008 3:59 PM
Brother Blakeley, may I remind you that Bush owns a ranch and cuts down his own trees ? He's probably dug hundreds more fencepost holes than you have, bro. You big loon !
Posted by: William Jefferson Blakeley | July 11, 2008 4:00 PM
What is the matter with leaving things better than you found them?
and to William Jefferson Blakeley | July 11, 2008 4:00 PM
Do you really think he does those things? I thnk he does them as photo ops showing what a great rancher he is in his pick-em-up truck...nothing more.
Posted by: lochnessmonster | July 11, 2008 4:12 PM
So unilateral action is cool by Bush if it's say, a war. But not CO2.
Posted by: MPK | July 11, 2008 4:17 PM
Thank goodness someone has some sense in this "greenhouse gas" fraud. The people behind all of this like Al Gore are making hundreds of millions of dollars from their worthless "carbon credits" to their countless and baseless movies. Want to stop carbon dioxide? Tell everyone to stop breathing! That will be the first step if Obama becomes president.
Posted by: Derrick | July 11, 2008 4:19 PM
Sure Derrick the whole world governmental community has perpetrated this "fraud" for what purpose? Just look to the south pole and the north pole for evidence, you know, all that melting ice!
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | July 11, 2008 4:24 PM
Derrick -- and the world is flat. You know, Derrick, education isn't such a scary thing. You might want to try it.
Posted by: Jerry | July 11, 2008 4:39 PM
I have to also add, by looking at the photo accompanying this article, Bush doesnt even know how to hold a shovel for goodness sakes!! This guy is just one big loon!
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | July 11, 2008 3:40 PM
That photo is a lot like the one of BHO with his back to the flag and his hands in the fig leaf position, while everybody else has their right hand over their heart. It's a snapshot in time; you don't know what came before or what came after, what the circumstances were, and your comment is just a cheap shot.
Posted by: DaveB | July 11, 2008 4:49 PM
Maybe Bush thinks he's digging a hole in the sand to stick his head into...
WJ Blakeley...I think you are referring to the photo op of Bush cutting brush with a chain saw. I really doubt he's ever dug a fence post hole. It's not a working ranch.
Posted by: DD | July 11, 2008 4:50 PM
Last time I checked, the EPA Administrator's name was Stephen Johnson (that's the name on the last page of this ANPR,anyway) not Stephen Abraham.
Posted by: DaveB | July 11, 2008 4:54 PM
we can not expect anything good for the people or our country with all these greedy,idiots we have in government.when will people wake up and demand better laws and more control over what goes on, they won't because most are too lazy minded and don't care. they don't take the time to speak out or even read what is really going on. "You can't fix Stupid"
Posted by: sage | July 11, 2008 4:55 PM
Derrick, if your basing your opinion of global warming on a movie, than youre ignorant of the facts. There are plenty of scientists out there relating their research conclusions in magazines and journals.
Posted by: Devin S | July 11, 2008 5:04 PM
Mr. James, did you actually read the document? If you had (and I haven't read it in detail either, but I have scanned it) you'd realize that far from "nixing" greenhouse gas regulation, EPA has embarked on the first step.
Understand the process. This is an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR). EPA is doing ANPR's more and more lately, for complex rulemakings. For instance, they did an ANPR for the recently finalized locomotive and compression-ignition marine engines emissions rulemaking. The purpose of an ANPR is to gaher information from as wide a range of sources as possible. The will get responses ranging from postcards saying that the world will end if they don't stop greenhouse gas emissions now, to hundreds of copies of form letters drafted by environmental activist organizations, to well-thought-out independent analyses supported by data. Once they have gained their input (and they have allowed 120 days, an unusually long time, for responses) they will generate a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, with another comment period, then a final rule.
EPA has correctly realized the obvious, that the greenhouse gas question is tremendously complicated, with far-reaching implications. If you regulate emissions from mobile sources, then what about home heating? What about power generation? Are you going to tell people to freeze in the dark to avoid emitting carbon dioxide? What is the interaction between reduction of emissions specifically named in the Clean Air Act and carbon dioxide, which isn't?
Finally, do we want such an important matter to be decided by unelected regulators at the behest of unelected judges, or do we want some congressional input? I'd prefer the latter; if Congress wants greenhouse gas regulation, let them amend the Clean Air Act specifically to require it.
Posted by: DaveB | July 11, 2008 5:16 PM
At this rate, we'll be lucky if the EPA starts to do its job by 2050 (such forward thinking!!?). By the way, do they want to cut 2008 gases in half by 2050, or 2050's greenhouse gases in half?
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport☮ | July 11, 2008 5:35 PM
carry that water, DaveB!
Posted by: lostfourwords | July 11, 2008 5:37 PM
I seem to recall that Bush is a millionaire, as is his father, and his grandfather. The only holes GWB has dug has been for photo ops.
Posted by: Patrick Johns | July 11, 2008 6:24 PM
We have been very fortunate to have a leader such as George Bush these past 7 years.
Even if one accepts the premise that human activity is causing global warming--and half the public does not--the overreaction the alarmists call for would ruin our economy and standard of living and in the end make very little difference.
Posted by: Danaidh | July 11, 2008 7:19 PM
Atta boy, George!
Posted by: Dick Cheney | July 11, 2008 7:42 PM
We have been very fortunate to have a leader such as George Bush these past 7 years.
Even if one accepts the premise that human activity is causing global warming--and half the public does not--the overreaction the alarmists call for would ruin our economy and standard of living and in the end make very little difference.
Posted by: Danaidh | July 11, 2008 7:19 PM
If you're serious, you've got some studying to do:
http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport☮ | July 12, 2008 4:19 PM
CO2 has little or no efect on climate. You are seeing an urban warming effect. The planet is fine.
Posted by: Francis T. Manns | July 12, 2008 4:34 PM
I'm not carrying water. lostfourwords, I'm just talking about what the process is.
If you read the ANPR (it's sitting on my desk right now, an inch-and-a-half-high pile of double-sided printed glory) you would see that it has a lot of "This is what EPA is thinking now," and a lot of "EPA requests comment." That's what an ANPR is.
What did you expect, a direct final rule? EPA does those, but generally only for small matters that they expect to be noncontroversial. Even so, there is a comment period, and if EPA receives adverse comments, they have to withdraw the rule. If EPA had issued a direct final rule for this matter, they'd receive lots of adverse comments, and it would be back to the notice and comment process again. They of course knew this, and started the notice and comment process without sidetracking into a direct final rule.
Administrator Johnson is entirely correct in saying that the Clean Air Act is ill-suited for the greenhouse gas regulation. The Clean Air Act addresses greenhouse gases in about the same manner as the Constitution addresses abortion; not specifically mentioned, but if you look hard enough you can find it in there somewhere. Many of us who work in the environmental field were as amazed by the Supreme Court's greenhouse gas decision as others were by Roe vs. Wade.
Which four words did you lose? I'm sure you could find them in the dictionary!
Posted by: DaveB | July 12, 2008 9:51 PM
What do you think it will take? I watched the weather channel the other day, it had a respiratory index, like telling you if the weather is good for golf. I didn't really understand it...was it suppose to tell whether or not it was good enough weather to breathe?
Posted by: Slim | July 13, 2008 10:31 PM