Breaking: EPA sends CO2 endangerment finding to White House

Reuters reports:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has sent its final proposal on whether carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions pose a danger to human health and welfare to the White House for review, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told Reuters on Monday.

The EPA’s final finding, if it follows the agency’s earlier assessment and is approved by the Office of Management and Budget, would allow the EPA to issue rules later to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, even if Congress fails to pass legislation to cut U.S. emissions of the heat-trapping gases that contribute to global warming.

For background, see New EPA rule will require use of best technologies to reduce greenhouse gases from large facilities when “constructed or significantly modified” “” small businesses and farms exempt.

Here’s more:

“We sent the final proposal over to OMB on Friday,” Jackson said in an interview at her EPA headquarters’ office.

She said the OMB has up to 90 days to review the proposal, but the EPA would like a quicker timetable.

“We’ve briefed them a couple of times. So we’re hoping for an expedited review,” Jackson said.

Along with its final endangerment finding, the EPA also sent to OMB the agency’s final finding on whether cars and trucks “cause or contribute to that pollution,” Jackson said.

Such a finding would allow the federal government to regulate tailpipe emissions by increasing vehicle mileage requirement.

Jackson said the government is facing a “hard deadline” of next March to let automakers know of any required increases in fuel economy standards that would affect vehicles built for the 2012 model year.

It remains vital that the administration pursue this less-than-perfect approach in case Congress fails to pass the climate and clean energy bill.

Related Post:

3 Responses to Breaking: EPA sends CO2 endangerment finding to White House

  1. Jim Bouldin says:

    Is this just an updated version of the Finding from this past spring, or do the regulations on large plants make it significantly different?

  2. Ben Lieberman says:

    This is an important step toward protecting the environment from accelerating global warming–will it also have the effect of focusing the Senate?

    Did you happen to catch the extremely pessimistic “analysis” by John Harwood of the New York Times:

  3. Marcus says:

    Could you fix the C02/CO2 typo? Its a small thing, but it is just something that has always bothered me – 99% of the time I see that mistake being made by WattsUp and such websites, so it surprises me to see it here…

    [JR: Thanks. Typos are … typos.]