By Calvin B. Parnell, Jr. PhD and P.E.

Director, Center for Agricultural Air Quality Engineering and Science (CAAQES)

Wake up everybody. Global Warming is going change the way we live!  

The Supreme Court (Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 2007) ruled that greenhouse gases (GHG) consisting primarily of carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄) and nitrous oxide (N₂O) are air pollutants and must be regulated by EPA under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The combination of these three gasses is referred to as carbon dioxide equivalents (CO₂e). The goal of this article is to address why this court decision was made and what will be the impacts of this decision on the public in the U.S.

Why did the court mandate that EPA treat CO₂e as an air pollutant regulated under the CAA?

We breathe in CO₂. We do not breathe the conventional CAA pollutants except in concentrations set at levels that protect public health and welfare with “an adequate margin of safety”. The concentrations of CO₂e in the ambient air are not being labeled air pollutants to be regulated under the CAA because of health effects. The justification of this action is the belief that the world is facing a crisis. There are scientists and politicians who believe the following:

1. The Globe (world) is warming.
2. This warming is caused by increasing concentrations of CO₂e in the atmosphere. 
3. The cause of these increased concentrations of CO₂e is the burning of fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and petroleum)
4. We must act now to reduce emissions of CO₂e or it will be too late. Major calamities are being predicted by scientists using models in 2050 and beyond.

I label this group as alarmists “A”. I label those scientists and politicians who do not belong to group A are those who question the model predictions and have the audacity to suggest that the panic associated with global warming supposedly caused by increased combustion of fossil fuels as not warranted as group “B”. Most of group A want the public to think that those in group B do not exist. Group B is quite large but their views are not popular with the media.

As part of the Supreme Court decision in 2007, the Administrator of EPA was required to “determine whether or not emissions of GHG from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare or whether science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision.” On April 17, 2009, the “Endangerment Finding” by the Administrator was made public. The Administrator of EPA’s finding was that GHG “in the atmosphere do threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.” The Administrator also stated that GHG from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines contribute to atmospheric concentrations of GHG and pose a threat of climate change.

All conventional air pollutants are regulated under the authority the CAA with a justification of protecting public health and welfare. The following is stated in the EPA technical support documents “Current ambient concentrations of CO₂ and other GHGs remain well below published exposure thresholds for any direct adverse health effects, such as respiratory or toxic effects.” (EPA, 2009a) The threat of “Climate Change” is the justification for this finding.  Although the endangerment finding by EPA is limited to new motor vehicles, it is being assumed that EPA will be applying limits to all sources of GHG. This is spelled out in the Waxman-Markey bill (2009).

In response to this crisis, Congressmen Waxman and Markey have proposed a bill that is far reaching in the powers provided to EPA to limit emissions of these nasty CO₂e pollutants that are “spewing” out of cars, power plants, agricultural operations, and manufacturing plants. This bill sets goals of limiting CO₂e emissions to less than 20% below the 2005 emission levels by 2020, and 83% below the 2005 levels by 2050. What are these levels and how will achieving these goals impact the general public in the U.S. (me and my grandchildren)? The media has generally represented views that are typical of group A with the impression that achieving these goals will be relatively easy and “clean, green renewable fuels” will displace the nasty, dirty fossil fuels with minimum increases of energy costs for the public.

This impression is incorrect!

Part 2 coming soon…