Green Response to EPA’s CO2 Finding: “Duh.”

Reactions are coming in to The EPA’s long-awaited finding today that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases pose a threat to “the public health and welfare.” One California environmental group actually used the word “Duh” in its official response.

After two years of study, prodded by a Supreme Court decision, the federal agency finds that CO2, methane, oxides of nitrogen and two other industrial gases should be regulated as pollutants under the Clean Air Act. A sampling of reactions:

Environment California:

“‘Duh’ may not be a scientific term, but it applies here.  Today, common sense prevailed over pressure from Big Oil and other big polluters to deny the obvious in order to maintain the status quo on energy.  EPA has embraced the basic facts on global warming that scientists around the world have acknowledged for years.”

Governor Schwarzenegger:

“While the federal government was asleep at the wheel for years, we in California have known greenhouse gases are a threat to our health and to our environment – that’s why we have taken such aggressive action to reduce harmful emissions and move toward a greener economy. Two years after the Supreme Court declared greenhouse gas emissions a pollutant, it’s promising to see the new administration in Washington showing signs that it will take an aggressive leadership role in fighting climate change that will lead to reduced emissions, thousands of new green jobs and a healthier future for our children and our planet.”

Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma–boldface is his):

“Today’s action by the EPA is the beginning of a regulatory barrage that will destroy jobs, raise energy prices for consumers, and undermine America’s global competitiveness,” Senator Inhofe said. “It now appears EPA’s regulatory reach will find its way into schools, hospitals, assisted living facilities, and just about any activity that meets minimum thresholds in the Clean Air Act.  Rep. John Dingell was right: the endangerment finding will produce a ‘glorious mess.’

The Wilderness Society:

“This finding was expected, but long overdue because the previous administration respected neither the science nor the law. The consequence of this finding is that EPA will now begin the task of reducing these emissions through the permitting process provided by the Clean Air Act. One way or the other, the clear and present danger of endlessly dumping pollutants into the atmosphere must be confronted.  We will either find a way to build a future for our children based on clean energy and sustainable jobs, or we will face a very unsentimental foe unarmed – a climate that makes life unsustainable. The choice is clear, and the new Administration is following the wisest path forward.”

California moved to regulate carbon emissions three years ago, when state lawmakers passed the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, also known as AB 32. But many specific regulations required by that law have yet to take effect.

Green Response to EPA’s CO2 Finding: “Duh.” 17 April,2009Craig Miller

5 thoughts on “Green Response to EPA’s CO2 Finding: “Duh.””

  1. Yes, California made some really smart moves in passing AB-32. As a result last year 144,000 middle class tax paying families move to other states. Over 200 California business moved to Nevada to escape California taxes and excessive regulations. California unemployment rate is 11.2 percent almost three percent over the national average. We now have the highest taxes in the country and our legislature and CARB are getting ready to levy more carbon taxes. Yes, we were being really smart and ahead of the game. We are demonstrating to the nation how to destroying an economy.

    I found it interesting that in the EPA Technical Supporting Document most of the data charts are truncated to 2000. This avoids the need to explain the lack of warming over the last ten years and the declining temperature over the last three years.  This is a misleading report, ans will result in some very bad public policy.

    Well Duh!

  2. So when will you be leaving, Russ? Don’t let the door hit you on your way out.

  3. The science on global warming is in and over: it’s happening.

    From intense heat waves to extreme drought, longer wildfire seasons and billions of dollars spent in lost work days, lost school days and premature deaths, it would be bad public policy to enable the status quo and bear the costs of an unsustainable planet. It is clear that we need to get past our old ways of thinking.

    The good news is that we have the tools to stop the impacts of global warming. And, the evidence is overwhelmingly clear that a clean environment and a strong economy go hand in hand. Obama and the EPA are right: we need to move forward aggressively in protecting our environment, jump-starting our economy with green jobs and promoting clean technologies like wind and solar. Reducing global warming pollution to the levels demanded by the science will drive the creation of a clean energy economy, put Americans back to work in clean energy jobs, reduce our dependence on oil and spare our children and grandchildren and the world they’ll inherit from the ravages of global warming.

    Today, common sense prevailed over pressure from Big Oil and other big polluters to deny the obvious in order to maintain the status quo on energy. EPA has embraced the basic facts on global warming that scientists around the world have acknowledged for years. We applaud President Obama and EPA Administrator Jackson for putting science back in its rightful place at the forefront of environmental policy.

    Caitlyn Toombs
    Environment California

  4. Steve,

    I was born here and have decided to stay, kick a** and take names until we get his mess straightened out. I have grandkids and do not want to leave them so far in debt they cannot sample the good life.

    And, your evidence is what? A religious belief in global warming? Do you have an explanation for the last ten year of no warming that the climate models did not forecast? For the last three years we have experienced global cooling. And, your explanation is?

Comments are closed.


Craig Miller

Craig is a former KQED Science editor, specializing in weather, climate, water & energy issues, with a little seismology thrown in just to shake things up. Prior to that, he launched and led the station's award-winning multimedia project, Climate Watch. Craig is also an accomplished writer/producer of television documentaries, with a focus on natural resource issues.

Sponsored by

Become a KQED sponsor