# EPA Delays Climate Change Rules (but "Still Committed" to them) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 19, 2011, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epa-delays-climate-change-rules-but-still-committed-to-them/596821 "2011-09-19T13:45:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2011, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epa-delays-climate-change-rules-but-still-committed-to-them/596821/1 "2011-09-19T13:45:30Z")
Which prompted one [blogger to quip](http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/09/16/321242/white-house-delays-epa-co2-standards-but-is-still-very-much-committed-to-them/), “The White House is still “very much committed” to greenhouse gas reductions the way NBC was ‘Committed to Keeping Conan O’Brien’ on the network in January 2010. Too harsh? Just wait and see.” So the story is: > [@](#): > > The Environmental Protection Agency sought to quell concerns Thursday that climate change regulations will face the same fate as an ozone rule that the White House scuttled this month. > > EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said Wednesday that the agency would miss an end-of-September deadline to propose greenhouse gas standards for power plants, but insisted the rules are still on track. > > She told San Francisco radio station KQED on Thursday that the agency will “absolutely” continue moving ahead with the standards. EPA officials say they will announce a new schedule shortly. > > EPA is seeking to rebut the notion that the delay stems from White House or other influences outside the agency. Jackson told KQED that the delay was “not at all” a political decision, while spokeswoman Betsaida Alcantara told E2 that “we are very much committed to proposing the standards.” Normally I’d be inclined to take the EPA at their word that the delay is not motivated by the White House, or by political concerns. The blogger I link to, however, suggests that in combination with the previous move two weeks ago by the White House to kill an ozone rule, this move presages the eventual CO[sub]2[/sub] standard as being toothless and ineffectual: > [@](#): > > No, the NBC-Conan analogy isn’t really a good one because I do think the administration will issue CO[sub]2[/sub] standards. I’m just willing to bet that the Dynamic De-Regulators, Bill Daley and Cass Sunstein, will ensure that they are relatively meaningless, with virtually no impact on existing plants and thus no possibility of actually reducing electric utility greenhouse gas emissions. Is this prediction anything more than a disappointed “green” fretting? I don’t think so, but I’m willing to be shown where I’m wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2011, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epa-delays-climate-change-rules-but-still-committed-to-them/596821/2 "2011-09-19T14:00:53Z")
The EPA has to pass some regulations as per the recent SCOTUS case. They might pass something toothless, but I don’t really see why that would take longer then more effective regulations. So I don’t really see any reason to take them at their word. Regulating the CO2 emissions of the worlds largest economy is pretty complicated. Letting the timetable slip doesn’t really seem like a mystery in need of solving. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2011, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epa-delays-climate-change-rules-but-still-committed-to-them/596821/3 "2011-09-19T15:33:52Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > So I don’t really see any reason to take them at their word.. Err, that should be "So I don’t really see any reason **not** to take them at their word.. ---
**Author:** ![HookerChemical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/278dde/32.png) [@HookerChemical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HookerChemical)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2011, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epa-delays-climate-change-rules-but-still-committed-to-them/596821/4 "2011-09-19T18:15:17Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > The EPA has to pass some regulations as per the recent SCOTUS case. They might pass something toothless, but I don’t really see why that would take longer then more effective regulations. > > So I don’t really see any reason to take them at their word. Regulating the CO2 emissions of the worlds largest economy is pretty complicated. Letting the timetable slip doesn’t really seem like a mystery in need of solving. I’m a little worried that the delay may lead to inaction (especially if it’s delayed until a Republican is elected as president), but I agree that regulation of GHG is a big hairy mess. It’s relatively easy to regulate the pollutants that are currently regulated, which generally have regional impact. GHG is a different beast. NOx emissions leaking out of the LA area because permitting them is expensive isn’t a(n air quality) problem because the net result is that LA’s air gets better. Leaking GHG emissions from LA because of permitting challenges is a problem, because GHG have global impact and the leaked emissions will still impact the climate of LA. That said, I’ve been on the front line of implementing hastily crafted GHG regulations, inventories, and calculations, and everybody is tired of seeing all the problems that result. The EPA needs to get this right, even if it takes some time. Industry needs to see what’s coming down the road before it’s upon them. The EPA’s GHG reporting rule (which requires the reporting of GHG emissions from large sources but imposes no mitigation of GHG emissions) has been a bit of a mess due to monitoring requirements that had a very short implementation time, delays in the reporting software, EPA clarifications coming very late in the cycle, and occasional EPA misunderstanding of the various industries. I agree with that they’re trying to do with both the reporting regulation and potential mitigation, but it needs to be done correctly.