My Climate Change Kvetch

…that global warming is unequivocal, that there is "compelling and robust" evidence that the emissions endanger public welfare and that the EPA administrator is "required by law" to act to protect Americans from future harm.
— Environmental Protection Agency
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
December 5^th, 2007

For both personal and professional motives I have read my fair share of Environmental regulations, proposed rules, legislation and court findings. Let's just say that while sitting down to read the latest update on the road to carbon dioxide regulation, this wasn't my first time at the rodeo. Until today, however, I have never used the word unconscionable in reference to a regulator. Today was also the first time I have been brought to tears by the implications of a single action, or in this instance, an in-action.

The Environmental Protection Agency announced today that it will not regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Its a complete reversal of the finding the same Agency made in December. By EPA declining to regulate CO2 the EPA turns a deaf ear to several states and the Supreme Court. As an industry hack I will say many of the CO2 reduction measures brainstormed in the public arena are not at all in-step with technologies available. Many carbon control technologies, while promising, are not ready nor even available for prime time.

However there is no shortage of perfectly appropriate measures the EPA could implement which would reduce CO2 emissions:
**Revisiting Building and Electrical Codes which were established to avoid fires but could be modified to maximize energy efficiency.
**Requiring industries to incrementally up renewable energy resources.
**Increasing fuel efficiency standards.
**Modifying agricultural practices.
**Reducing the speed limit.
**Proliferate the use of algae to consume CO2 emissions.
**Carbon trading systems with a "safety cap" or maximum cost to preserve the economy.

Instead the Agency throws up its hands, decides to do nothing, and walks away. And not for a lack of scientific data, judicial pressure, nor the moral imperative to act. EPA's inaction on the issue of carbon dioxide occurs here because the political will doesn't make an appearance within the agency. Excuse me as I devlove with an adolescent insult, but, that I find that un-f-ing-believable.