It's easy to ignore the massive greenhouse gas emissions of fossil fuel, chemical, and motor vehicle companies when the exact amount of said emissions isn't available. But ignorance will no longer be possible if the US Environmental Protection Agency's new proposal for a comprehensive national reporting system for greenhouse gas emissions becomes reality.
The EPA's reporting requirements would apply to all fossil fuel and industrial chemical suppliers, manufacturers of cars and vehicle engines, and companies that emit at least 25,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases each year--the average annual emissions of 4,500 cars. Approximately 13,000 facilities fall into that category. The facilities release an astounding 85 to 90 percent of all greenhouse gases in the US.
With estimated annual costs of over $120 million, companies will have to expend considerable resources on complying with the EPA. If the proposal is approved, companies will be expected to submit initial reports in 2010 and 2011.
While the EPA's rule will help the government gauge the severity of our greenhouse gas problem, it will also have the added benefit of allowing the general public to pick and choose which companies to support based on emissions. Once the shock value of their emissions reports subside, major polluters might want to look into becoming a bit greener--if only to stop the complaints of environmentally-conscious consumers.
[Via EPA]
Related Stories: | Topics:Innovation, Technology, Ethonomics, EPA, greenhouse gas, Science and Technology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Climatology, Earth Science, Global Climate Change |
Email
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Buzz Up!
LinkedIn
Recent Comments | 6 Total
March 11, 2009 at 12:46pm by Nunzio Martin
Who's the greatest polluter of all? The oil companies? The chemical companies? The nuclear power plants? If you guessed "none of the above," you'd be correct. Our government, at the federal, state, and local levels, is the single greatest polluter in the land. In addition, our government doesn't even clean up its own garbage! So is the EPA going to enforce its policies on "the government"? My guess is no because it doesn't make sense to fine yourself. Wake up people!
March 11, 2009 at 1:46pm by Ariel Schwartz
@Nunzio It is certainly true that the government is a significant polluter, but the EPA's policy (if enacted) will apply to all polluters -- including government-related facilities. Additionally, the EPA isn't proposing fines for large polluters, just reports on emissions -- which means there's no incentive to lie.
March 11, 2009 at 8:20pm by Nunzio Martin
@Ariel, first by fine I did not mean money I was implying the stigma as suggested in the article, Also no where in this article is it saying it would report on the government unless you count reporting to the government it only mentions companies and their consumers, last time I checked the government did not have consumers, they consume us. Now in no way am I saying this is a bad idea to report on the violators but as far as the government goes the EPA demanded that the Departments of Energy and Defense clean up 17 of their weapons plants which were leaking radioactive and toxic chemicals -- enough contamination to cost $100 billion in clean-up costs over 50 years! The EPA was simply ignored. No bureaucrats went to jail or were sued for damages and these departments are still running and doing the same things so apparently the stigma didn't make a difference to the government. Government departments have sovereign immunity. It is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. That is all I am saying is that if we want to be serious about cleaning up the environment the first place to start is significantly reducing the size and scope of the government. Government, both federal and local, is the greatest single polluter in the U.S. I welcome any and all debate on this matter.
March 11, 2009 at 8:23pm by Ariel Schwartz
@Nunzio I'm curious - do you propose that a private company acts as the major environmental watchdog group for the US instead of the EPA?
March 11, 2009 at 9:32pm by Nunzio Martin
@Ariel, first I am astonished that is the only thing you picked from my response I see you are already trying to pigeon hole me. Now no I would not want a corporation as the watchdog but I would offer a better solution of a naturalist organization such as the Audubon Society or Nature Conservancy because there sole motivation is to protect and conserve nature. For example The Audubon Society's Rainey Wildlife Sanctuary partially supports itself with natural gas wells operated in an ecologically sound manner. In addition to preserving the sensitive habitat, the Society shows how technology and ecology can co-exist peacefully and profitably.