EPA's greenhouse gas plan -- or is it?
Hundreds of billions of dollars in estimated potential savings to consumers at the gas pump and elsewhere from greenhouse gas reductions have been slashed in a key Environmental Protection Agency document set to be unveiled this morning by Administrator Stephen Johnson, according to a source with close ties to the agency.
A May 30 draft document prepared by EPA staff concluded that as much as $2 trillion in benefits to consumers from reduced fuel usage and other savings could be achieved over time if, for instance, automobiles were redesigned to reduce greenhouse gases. After the White House Office of Management and Budget had a look, that amount has dropped to $1.2 trillion -- or $800 billion less -- as of last night, the source said.
Several other agencies have also written letters commenting on the EPA's proposal on greenhouse gas regulations, which Johnson will reportedly include as part of his announcement. In the past, officials of the Energy and Transportation departments, as well as the White House, have had a different take than EPA staff on climate change and what should be done.
Johnson's announcement, scheduled for 10:30 a.m. Pacific time, is the latest step in a saga lasting more than a year, ever since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the EPA must study and act on climate change if it is harming the public.
-- Janet Wilson
The savings alluded to is if the consumer somehow buys a new car with a substantially higher MPG or non-gasoline powered car. Capturing and collecting the ever present and now seemingly noxious CO2 will be like capturing our breath. Oh, that's right, it is our breath. Well, there are no savings for the consumer with these proposed mandates. Someone has to pay and it will be us.
Posted by: Drew Campbell | July 11, 2008 at 08:22 AM
The earth's atmosphere in no way resembles a greenhouse.
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
Posted by: anonymous | July 11, 2008 at 09:27 AM
Plan or not? Are you kidding me, somehow $1.2 trillion is not considered a savings? If this isn't media spin I don't know what is.
Posted by: SG | July 11, 2008 at 10:45 AM
Why can I not post a comment!
Posted by: Dud | July 11, 2008 at 10:55 AM
as McCain's advisor, former Sen. Phil Gramm would say:
what's the problem? If you're rich enough, there's always somewhere nice to live. If you're not rich, that's your bad planning. Stop Whining!
Posted by: CommonTator | July 11, 2008 at 03:03 PM
The assumption was changed to $2 per gallon of gas to suit their math. Poor guys, it still ended up with $1.2 trillion of savings. Imagine with gas at $4.
There's this thing about math. You can fake it only upto a limit.
Posted by: cloud9ine | July 11, 2008 at 03:04 PM