EPA proposes greenhouse gas registry – A first step for climate policy

On March 10 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it will propose a new rule to require greenhouse gas emissions reporting from thousands of businesses nationwide – a prerequisite for any effective climate change program. A greenhouse gas registry is a database for collecting, verifying, and tracking emissions from specific industrial sources.

Late in 2007 Congress ordered the Bush EPA to create just such a greenhouse gas emissions reporting rule. Not surprisingly, the Bush administration missed its first deadline for publishing a draft of the rule and let the process languish. However, a good amount of work was done by EPA staff – work that is finally seeing the light of day.

According to the EPA's press release, the draft rule would require about 13,000 facilities to report greenhouse gas emissions. The agency estimates the reporting will cover 85 to 90 percent of U.S. emissions. The rule accomplishes this by requiring reports to include "upstream" sources such as fossil fuel suppliers, as well as motor vehicles and stationary sources such as cement plants and power plants. There will be a sixty-day comment period during which the agency will hold two public hearings on the draft rule.

The proposed threshold for reporting greenhouse gases is 25,000 tons per year of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e). Because carbon is only one of at least six gases covered by the draft rule, and each gas has a different impact on global warming, the impacts are measured as CO₂e.

The proposed rule does not require third-party certification of a company's emissions report, without which there will be less certainty and accountability. The draft rule does, however, require electronic reporting, and intends to use existing reporting programs where practicable and develop a new reporting system for all other cases.

A comprehensive emissions registry is crucial to ensuring efficiency and accountability in any forthcoming climate change legislation. We cannot reduce greenhouse gas emissions if we do not know who is emitting and how much. Congress is now drafting greenhouse gas cap-and-trade legislation. For any such program to work well, data on the emissions of every covered facility are required so that the appropriate number of carbon "credits" are allocated. The data also help ensure emissions reductions are actually being made.

The European Union moved ahead with its cap-and-trade program before it had a decent accounting of per-facility emissions. The price of carbon crashed when it became clear that too many credits had been allocated, eliminating the incentive to cut emissions. The Europeans fixed the problem and are working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The EPA’s new draft rule should help the U.S. avoid Europe’s mistake.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration's inaction has cost us vital time. The proposed registry would not begin collecting data until 2011 for emissions in 2010.

(Brian Turnbaugh 03/11/09)

Comments

by John (not verified) on 07/29/09

The proposed threshold for

The proposed threshold for reporting greenhouse gases is 25,000 tons per year of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). The standards should be much higher than 25,000 tons per year.

by Rocky Patel (not verified) on 06/23/09

"Here is a link from the

"Here is a link from the University of West Virginia that points out a very interesting observation about the global climate change debate and which data points they choose to ignore." Why are they ignoring any of the facts? It's obvious that they're pushing an agenda if they're blatantly ignoring facts. -- Rocky

by Rubicon (not verified) on 03/15/09

Carbonicus has said, CO2 is

Carbonicus has said, CO2 is "NOT" a pollutant. He hits the nail directly on the head! Yet our federal government, the governments of many nations around the world, & the back room bureaucrats at the inept & corrupt United Nations, who are in the thrall of hyper partisan special interest groups, & who have littered our government bureaucracies w/ allies & enablers, continue to push for legislation, regulations, & all sorts of supposedly do-good programs, allegedly to combat this supposedly terrible emission, plus any & every other emission they can get their hands on! In the end, ideologues seeking specific political change & especially seeking political power & methods to enhance their own personal power & wealth, will attempt to pressure our legislators to impose draconian regulations on us. Impositions that will only damage our economy, produce only minuscule temperature changes, & create an international bureaucracy designed to deny individual national sovereignty. All this negative energy will be expended, while allowing wealthy & political power players to demand America obey their dictates, since we subscribe to international cooperation. These people may look & sound harmless now. They may appear to represent compassionate & altruistic causes now, but in the long run, as their reach of power & wealth increases, they will turn into the world's future despots. The plans these people represent, mean average people the world over will face serious oppression, be deprived of life giving & life saving needs, & be required to submit to the will & whim of people who today we already know are just petty tyrants. People the world over better get ready for third world living conditions wherever this crowd decides is a loser in their crap game of energy & life. The powers of the Global Warming & Climate Change regulators & the legislation provided them, will finally encourage them to expose their real tone & intentions. You can bet their tone will change for the worst! Many will say we never saw it coming. I call them, the "mockers." These are the same folks who poke fun at those issuing warnings today. You know, the "deniers." However, the truth is, those of us who do see it coming, intend to stand up & fight against this sickness. The mockers will have to face up to the people they sold out, for expediency & their own political gain. The mockers are the people who think that because "they" believe, the rest of us are wrong & should not be listened to at all. CO2 is one of the primary elements supporting life on this planet. Those seeking to control it, are really seeking to control life on this planet. They want nothing less than everything & they will say & do anything at all to get what they want! But, evidence is revealing their hoax for what it really is & today, many fewer buy into their rhetoric & lies. Conservation, preservation, & environmentalism, do not have to mean we scream the sky is falling & surrender our minds to those making fool's of the useful idiots. I can still care about the planet & not be a AGW/CC fanatic. And fanaticism w/o truthful & verifiable evidence is what is exposing these people as the fool's & despots they are!

by Carbonicus (not verified) on 03/14/09

CO2 isn't a "pollutant".

CO2 isn't a "pollutant". Despite Mass. v. EPA, despite EPA's "endangerment finding" process, whatever follows. Politics and neo-environmentalism passing as science. Computer model guesses overruling observed evidence. Wake up, America. You are about to waste 2-4% of GDP EVERY YEAR on something that is a hypothesis, and for which the actions taken will be entirely environmentally inconsequential. Is .20 degrees Celsius difference in the year 2100 worth 2-4% of GDP EVERY YEAR? These are not Exxon's figures, THEY ARE THE UN IPCC'S OWN FIGURES!!!! 2-4% of US $14 trillion annual GDP currently represents $280bn - $560bn PER YEAR. The crime is that, with a fraction of this money, we could more rapidly develop alternatives that might someday replace fossils, meanwhile bringing clean water, basic sanitation, and pulling out of poverty 1-2 billion people. Stand up for what's right and what's justified by legitimate science and cost/benefit analysis, not political ideology, people.

by Anonymous (not verified) on 03/13/09

Here is a link from the

Here is a link from the University of West Virginia that points out a very interesting observation about the global climate change debate and which data points they choose to ignore. This type information should be part of the climate change debate: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html