Saturday, March 14, 2009
Regulation watch: The new greenhouse gas monitoring regulations
My old law firm, Latham & Watkins, has put out a "client alert" (pdf) describing the breadth and depth of the new greenhouse gas monitoring regulation that the Environmental Protection Agency has proposed. I admit, I do not have a good handle on the extent to which it will burden American industry because I do not know what is involved in monitoring GHG emissions, but it sure seems like a big new load to shoulder at a very difficult time for the affected industries.
9 Comments:
By 
Kinuachdrach, at
Sat Mar 14, 02:49:00 PM:
Think "Superfund". Think of thousands of bureaucrats filling in forms. Think of smart guys coming up with perfectly legal ways to game the over-complicated system. Think of overpaid lawyers trying to prove that those legal ways are not legal. Think waste.
Remember AIDS. Remember how the earnest predictions of a huge epidemic turned out to be false -- except apparently in certain African countries, where clever government bureaucrats classify accidental road deaths as AIDS-related to screw more money out of UN agencies. Then wonder how useful a cap & trade certificate from an African power plant will be.
By Brian, at
Sat Mar 14, 05:25:00 PM:
Or think Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, and decide whether you want to go back to the air and water we had in the 1960s.
More to the point, these large scale emitters subject to this regulation are under Clean Air Act emission reporting standards anyway. This is one more pollutant that's easily tracked because it's not a trace pollutant.
By 
, at
Sat Mar 14, 07:09:00 PM:
The Clean Water and Clean Air Acts were actually important to reduce harmful emissions, emissions that harmed our health. Anyone who was observant in the 60's will remember the filthy rivers and choking air pollution. They have been effective in making the air and water in this country very acceptable. They actually have exceeded reasonableness in many cases. Carbon dioxide regulation is ridiculous. It is driven by the politically based anthropogenic global warming hoax instead of scientifically based pollution. I predict the perpetrators will be identified within 10 years. Unfortunately they probably will never be tried and punished because of the glaciers around the courthouses and the lack of electricity and heat.
By , at
Sat Mar 14, 08:31:00 PM:
"Or think Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, and decide whether you want to go back to the air and water we had in the 1960s.
More to the point, these large scale emitters subject to this regulation are under Clean Air Act emission reporting standards anyway. This is one more pollutant that's easily tracked because it's not a trace pollutant."
Obama has said he intends to double the amount of alternative energy within a few years.
I heard today that the present output of alternative energy is one percent of US requirements.
How will an increase to two percent make up for all the coal fired power stations bankrupted by Obama's CO2 tax.
By Purple Avenger, at
Sat Mar 14, 08:42:00 PM:
Coming up with these numbers is very easy Keep track of raw materials coming in, and ask your scientists/chemists to tell you how much will be emitted by the reactions involved in processing that volume of raw material using your current methods and operating efficiencies.
The techies know exactly what reactions are involved and what their byproducts are. Just scale the incoming tonnage of material based on those reactions.
Trying to measure it with instrumentation would be less accurate than using the reaction products.
By Georg Felis, at
Sun Mar 15, 01:49:00 AM:
My first reaction: I thought the Obama administration regulatory burden was supposed to be easier on the Very Large Companies (who have contributed bigtime) while being burdensome on the tiny companies because only the large companies were able to afford to hire the people needed to fill out the new paperwork. A quick scan over this makes me think the opposite, this is a crushing regulatory blow aimed at the large companies, leaving most/some of the small companies exempt. Until the thresholds are lowered. And lowered again. And again...
By , at
Sun Mar 15, 07:02:00 AM:
"this is a crushing regulatory blow aimed at the large companies, leaving most/some of the small companies exempt. Until the thresholds are lowered. And lowered again. And again... "
Where do you think most of the 200,000 new govornment jobs are going.
By Brian, at
Mon Mar 16, 01:48:00 AM:
Fake Gandalf (the real Gandalf wouldn't say what you said) - if you don't believe in AGW, bet me over it.
Davod - sources for your claims would be great.
Purple Avenger - sounds plausible.
Georgefelis - read Purple Avenger.
Davod again - read Purple Avenger.
By , at
Tue Mar 17, 01:29:00 AM:
Big time regulations and taxes on everybody to enrich wealthy eco-freaks like AL GORE and RED TED TURNER
