CARBON EMISSIONS UP 6% IN 2010

Now that 2011 has come to a close, lets look at a small issue that since the reports came out, the main stream media have chosen to ignore.
During 2010, our planet saw the largest increase in carbon emissions since the Industrial Revolution.

There. I said it. According to the Global Carbon Project, an international group of scientists tracking these numbers, emissions during that one year jumped about 6%. This is scary stuff. Question is, why haven't the news outlets pounced on this?

 

Nature Geoscience Journal published a report detailing the evidence that confirms just how much humans contribute to this disaster since 1950. That would be three quarters in case you're interested. Let it be known that 10 of the hottest years ever recorded have occurred in the last 15 years.

 

What are world leaders going to do about it? They're going to jump right on this issue, right? 
Ha! Fooled you. These turds are going to wait another eight years to cut emissions. And not a minute before dammit! 
In all fairness, they do intend to have some resemblance of a plan by 2015, but don't hold your breath. These folks only serve themselves and those who contribute the most money to their campaigns. Coincidently, the worst polluters are usually those same financial supporters.
 

Although the EPA has finally accepted CO2 as a contributing pollutant, it seems the US will participate in the "kicking the can" mentality while the Durbin agreement, which contains plenty of loopholes, states emissions won’t be cut until 2020. (Long after the current knuckleheads in Congress have made their fortunes and moved on)
 
Is this the year that we eventually look back and say, Yeah, that's when us humans took the path of no return, the inevitable ruination of our planet? I certainly hope not.

EPA TAKES ON EMISSIONS CONTROL

 In a bold and final move by the Obama Administration closing out the year, there was an unexpected shift in regulatory oversight regarding carbon emissions. As of January 1st of 2011, the EPA will have that oversight.   


Looking at the assumed reluctance of the 112th congress next year to address the well documented contribution of greenhouse gases by our energy producers, the President has bypassed the Congressional mayhem that would essentially kill the Cap&Trade Bill.

The President has the power to move these duties to the EPA, giving regulatory power to set limits on CO2 emissions from factories, power plants and refineries. Power plants and oil refineries will have to obtain federal permits that cap these emissions. Something those industry leaders have fought since it's inception. Well, anything that prevents pollution, really. It hurts the bottom line.

One of the themes throughout the Obama Presidency is the promotion of renewable, sustainable and green industry in hopes to create jobs. Much of the "Stimulus" of 2009 provided seed money for research and manufacturing in that developing market. Forcing the most notorious culprits in the dispersal of pollutants to actually curtail their emissions helps the cause. 


Considering the campaign financial support from energy companies to most Republicans and a few Democrats, the chance to get regulations passed through Congress would be a joke. Moving the authority to the EPA gives them the power to write the new rules. For the issues facing this country during the 112th, and the reluctance of the new majority in the House to act on our behalf, could this be the method that Obama gets some of the urgent issues addressed?

The EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, has to offer a list of modifications in January, allowing the implementation to occur later in the year to the best ability of the companies in question.    

David Doniger, of the NRDC was quoted in three sources: "By setting timetables for issuing standards to cut dangerous carbon pollution from power plants and oil refineries, EPA is doing precisely what is needed to protect our health and welfare and provide businesses certainty at a time when some would prefer to roll back the clock." I would have to agree with him.

INDUSTRIAL EMISSIONS RENEWED FOCUS

Industrial plants are again the focus of the Environmental Protection Agency. (As they should be) Last week, the EPA announced that any plant that produces 25,000 tons of "greenhouse gas" per year will be required to make the upgrades to the most efficient technology available each time they either build new or significantly modify their plant.

The list of sites include power plants, factories and refineries across the country.It is estimated that such industries are responsible for almost 70% of the greenhouse gas emissions that are released in the U.S.

When I saw the twitter post on this, I looked up the EPA online and found a quote from the EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. She said: "By using the power and authority of the Clean Air Act, we can begin reducing emissions from the nation's largest greenhouse gas-emitting facilities without placing an undue burden on the businesses that make up the vast majority of our economy,"

When she said the businesses that make up the vast majority, she meant the local coffee shops and hair salons at the street level. When the remaining 30% of the greenhouse gas is a result of domestic livestock droppings, our efforts to diminish our carbon footprint locally (however noble an effort) might look small when compared to the unregulated contributors that have caused the most carbon and methane offences for decades.

Considering how much flack the Obama Administration got this spring for pushing the car industry to lower their emissions standards for cars and trucks, I'm sure the EPA will be blasted for trying to cut industrial pollution as well.

I know I don't have to tell anyone that certain Senate members are struggling to block any authority of the EPA to regulate smoke stacks anymore than they already do. Look no further than where their contributions come from and who lobbies them the most, and you'll see who I referr to.

I point this out to the local community because I know there are so many grass roots efforts to diminish our footprint both municipal and private, that struggle because of the cost associated with the effort.
I dont advocate stopping the effort, but want to point out who the major "greenhouse gas" producers are and know that this type of regulation has been in need of an upgrade for a long time.