It’s interesting how quickly changes can begin with a new
administration…this week; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed a
national system for reporting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions
by major emitters. How big is the problem and who are the emitters? 85% of
greenhouse gases emitted in the country come from some estimated 13,000
facilities. These locations would be covered under the registry proposal.
The registry is included in President Obama's 2010 Budget and
would set the stage for regulation of CO2 and other gases that contribute to
global warming. Some say the administration is using the threat of regulation
of CO2 through the Clean Air Act to actually encourage reluctant lawmakers to
pass its climate change agenda. Time will tell what the outcome will be as
events move forward.
"Our efforts to confront climate change must be guided
by the best possible information," said EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson in
a statement. "Through this new reporting, we will have comprehensive and
accurate data about the production of greenhouse gases."
Jackson called the registry a "critical step toward
helping us better protect our health and environment."
Suppliers of fossil fuel and industrial chemicals,
manufacturers of motor vehicles and engines, as well as large direct emitters
of greenhouse gases with emissions equal to or greater than a threshold of
25,000 metric tons a year would be required to report.
Businesses would have to report to the EPA in 2011 for the
calendar year 2010, except for vehicle and engine manufacturers, which would
begin reporting for model year 2011. The EPA said it expected it would cost
industry around $160 million in the first year to comply with the reporting
requirements and around $ 127 million in subsequent years.
The president has said that he would prefer Congress to pass
legislation that would cap greenhouse gas emissions and create a market to
trade the right to pollute.
A registry would provide the data for both types of
regulation - a Congressionally created law or EPA rules.
Business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the
National Association of Manufacturers warn that if the EPA moves forward on
regulation of CO2 under the Clean Air Act as proposed - and which the registry
prepares for - it could throw the economy into a tailspin.
These organizations are short-sighted in their thinking and
are only looking at a part of the greater issue. They are reaching for simple
conclusions when the problem is actually very complex. Mostly, they are only
considering the short term effects instead of the long range catastrophe of
inaction. In planning for the future of our economy or any bold plan, sometimes
you have to take two steps back to go one step forward. A CO2 reporting system
should have been in place 30 years ago. We are simply making up for our past
mistakes.
A review of the GHG issue and other environmental policies
will be discussed in an upcoming webinar from NAEM: 60 Days into the Obama
Administration: The Likely Impacts on EHS, Energy and Sustainability Policy on
March 31st. Register here.
In addition, Enviance is also holding a webinar, coming up
on March 19th titled, “2009: Reducing Compliance Costs in Tough
Times – Can you Afford Not To?” Register here.
| 
