Coalsmoke Electric, a company that burns coal to generate electricity, recently questioned its future in light of recent debate of environmental issues on the emission of CO2 and how EPA’s new proposed laws and regulations could cause a closure that could affect many. The following report will show that without Coalsmoke’s ability to “conduct its business as usual” then the vitality of the company would be in jeopardy. Coalsmoke is proposing a plan to keep using the equipment it has that burns coal to generate electricity in order to remain viable as a company.
In November of 2006 the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed a case known as Massachusetts vs. EPA. The court was to address a long debated question about EPA’s authority to regulate the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, under the Clean Air Act. Environmental groups had petitioned the EPA in 1999 to regulate CO2 from car and truck emissions. It dismissed this petition in 2000, but in 2003 it was picked up again by a coalition of 12 states that believed the EPA was wrong and should regulate the emission of the gases including CO2. There were two sides to the fight. One side was fighting for the EPA to regulate CO2 and argue that the Clean Act mandates EPA to regulate any “chemical substance emitted into the air that can be a danger to the public’s health or welfare”. They argue that CO2’s role in global climate change meets those standards. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere increasing the earth’s surface air temperature (Murry, 2006)
On the other side, the groups that are opposed to regulations of CO2 as a greenhouse gas and say that the Clean Air Act’s language doesn’t include CO2, or any greenhouse gas as substances that must be regulated and that congress historically has omitted this type of gas from regulation. Opponents see the possible abuse of the regulations. They are concerned that court decisions could be applied to other CO2 sources such as power plants and older cars. Opponents also believe that regulations could hurt the economies because of the burden of cost of clean-up from industrial sources and vehicles. It should be noted that two of the major supporter to have this regulation have been utility companies that would have a tremendous possibility of monetary gain. One company is a nuclear power plant and the other is run on natural gas. Nuclear and natural gas plants don’t emit CO2 and this type of regulation could give them the competitive edge (Murry, 2006).
In a report published by The Heartland Institute titled “CO2 Regulation Would Affect One Million Smaller Businesses”, states that if the EPA were to classify carbon dioxide as a regulated “pollutant” this would create a huge bureaucracy and impose legal and economic burdens on approximately on million businesses that were at the center of the American economy. Fossil fuels supply 85 percent of all U.S. energy, the costs of reducing man made emissions of greenhouse gases would be staggering (The Heartland Institute, 1998).
The author of the study, Mark P. Mills warns, “The regulatory infrastructure needed to track emissions of CO2 from over a million different sources would dwarf anything the country has ever seen”. To comply with the federal CO2 regulations would make the farmers, truckers, manufacturers, building owners and others have to hire staff to install identify, evaluate, and operate emissions monitoring equipment. Then there would have to be people responsible for the data and documentation control that would they would have to hire. Then there would be a need for a crew that would have to have expertise in monitoring regulatory compliance and then the legal staff for the legal battles that will surround these activities. Mill works for a Maryland-based consulting company and worked on this study in 1998.
Once an emission, such as CO2, has been classified as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act then the EPA has legal authority to regulate it. Once classified that means a business that emits at least 100 tons per year of the pollutant it will then be identified as a stationary source and will be regulated by the EPA. A business can reach 100 tons of CO2 emissions in just burning $8000 a year in fuel oil or natural gas. That would mean that this could affect over 300,000 facilities or any manufacturing firm over 12,000 feet. This includes 28% of all educational buildings, 25% of all medical and health care facilities, 85% of farms, and 50% of trucking (The Heartland Institute, 1998).
Senators Smith, Voinovich and Brownback, “ requested an analysis of the potential costs of requiring power suppliers to acquire offsets for any increase in CO2 emissions that occur beyond the level expected in 2008”. The analysis of this information also found that, “By 2020, coal-fired electricity generation is projected to be between 4% and 10% below the referenced case level” (EIA.gov, 2001).
In April of 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court issued some major environmental rulings that two cases brought about, Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. EPA and Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy. The ruling was that the EPA must reconsider its decision to not regulate “Greenhouse Gas” emissions from new motor vehicles. This was due to the “question of standing”, the legal doctrine that courts should not hear cases that do not involve a real or threatened injury to a personal interest of a plaintiff which can be remedied though the court’s decision” (Stermitz, Cook & Asworth, 2007).
Here are some other facts related to C02 they include, 96.5% of all carbon dioxide emissions are from natural sources, mankind is responsible for only 3.5%, with 0.6% coming from fuel to move vehicles, and about 1% from fuel to heat buildings. Yet vehicle fuel (petrol) is taxed at 300% while fuel to heat buildings is taxed at 5% even though buildings emit nearly twice as much carbon dioxide. As carbon dioxide emissions from cars and factories do not have any measurable impact on climate, these taxes are ‘just another tax’ on enterprise and mobility, and have no real green credentials. There are nearly 18,000 signatures from scientists worldwide on a petition called The Oregon Petition which says that there is no evidence for man-made global warming theory or for any impact from mankind’s activities on climate. Many scientists believe that the Kyoto agreement is a total waste of time and one of the biggest political scams ever perpetrated on the public as H L Mencken said, “the fundamental aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary, the desire to save the world usually fronts a desire to rule it” (The Association of British Drivers, 2007)
Reference:
ABD, (The Association of British Drivers), “Green myths on global warming — debunked”, <http://www.abd.org.uk/green_myths.htm>
EIA, (Environmental Information Agency), “Reducing Emissions of Sulfur Dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury from electric power plants”. October 17, 2001
<http://www.eia.doe.gov>
Murray, Ann. (2006). “The high court to hear co2 case”. The Allegheny Front. November, 15.
Stermitz, Mark L., Cook, Stephen F., & Ashworth, John P., “U.S. supreme court issues major environmental rulings”. April, 2007. <http://www.bigskyco2.org/>
The Heartland Institute, 1998, Farmers, manufacturers, schools would bear the brunt of new global warming regulations. Environment News. September 1, 1998.
