We need common-sense proposals to require big emitters -- large new and upgraded power plants and industrial emitters -- to use the best solutions in lowering climate change emissions.
Now the Environmental Protection Agency is doing just that. They're asking for public comments on their new proposal to cut global warming pollution from big emitters.
This is a critical step in the EPA's efforts to regulate global warming pollution under the Clean Air Act and to keep the political pressure on Congress to pass an economy-wide cap on global warming pollution.
These big emitters produce more than 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually. The deadline for public comments is December 28! Act now to send an email to the EPA supporting their greenhouse gas endangerment finding and their efforts to cut global warming pollution.
ATTENTION Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0517
Thank you for your historic action, in response to the Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, recognizing that global warming pollution imperils human health and welfare. Your tremendous leadership in reclaiming compliance with the law is rooted in strong science.
Climate change is one of the most crucial problems facing the nation and the world today. We also need to recognize the scientific imperative for policy action. I applaud your common-sense proposal to require big emitters -- large new and upgraded power plants and industrial emitters -- to use the best solutions in lowering their heat-trapping pollution.
Your proposal will ensure the extensive capital investments in the nation's largest new sources of global warming pollution are harmonized with the need to reduce greenhouse gases thereby avoiding costly retrofits after the fact while advancing new clean energy technologies. I appreciate that EPA is prioritizing the biggest sources of heat-trapping pollution, namely the ones that emit more than 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually.
I also support your decision to shield small sources from regulation, so that we can focus the nation's resources on cost-effective reductions from big emitters. That makes a great deal of sense. By setting a 25,000-ton threshold -- comparable to the annual energy use of about 2,200 homes -- the proposal makes clear that individual homes and small businesses would not be covered by this program (despite scare-mongers claims to the contrary).
[Your comments]
Finally, I agree with you that it would be even better for Congress to pass legislation creating a program that comprehensively addresses climate change and clean energy solutions. But EPA's smart policies are a foundation for strong Congressional action. And, until Congress acts, it's vital that the nation deploy innovative, protective policies to reduce global warming pollution and to ensure that America is winning the race to clean energy innovation in the global marketplace.
