EPA Studies Ways to Cut Warming Pollution (First real plan analysis!)

[papau]

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/bw-other/2005/oct/27/102701552.html


EPA Studies Ways to Cut Warming Pollution
By JOHN HEILPRIN
ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) - Government studies released Thursday show a broad range of potential costs if the United States were to regulate carbon dioxide to curb global warming, from relatively cheap to expensive. <snip>

<snip>The president rejected the 1997 Kyoto pact that requires industrial nations to reduce carbon dioxide, saying it would cost the U.S. economy $400 billion and almost 5 million jobs.

The EPA analysis, however, put the cost at much less. Under the Carper scenario, the agency said, federal controls to reduce carbon dioxide would cost $2.5 billion to $5 billion by 2013. More stringent controls under the Jeffords approach would cost $32 billion to $54 billion by 2010, EPA said.

<snip>Jeffords' plan would cut 1.5 million tons of nitrogen oxides, 2.25 million tons of sulfur dioxide and 5 tons of mercury by 2010, and reduce 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide by 2010. It would cost $41 billion to $51 billion a year, but provide up to $211 billion a year in health benefits by 2020, EPA said. <snip>

News Release
http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/epalink?logname=epahome&referrer=topstories&target=http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d9bf8d9315e942578525701c005e573c/5b266fa8b93156e3852570a7005ee572!OpenDocument

Analyses and support documents
http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/epalink?logname=epahome&referrer=topstories&target=http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/mp/

[phantom power]

1. $400 billion

Interesting. Katrina alone has already cost our economy over $50 billion. I wonder what the total (for just this season) will be, if we add up all the damage done by all the hurricanes that hit the U.S.

This year. And next year. And the year after that...

[papau]

2. Bush works on "who's benefit" - not "cost/benefit" - analysis

Until storms upset the trusts funds of the rich, storms are not important.

[NNadir]

3. You cannot control global climate change for 5 billion.

You cannot control it for 50 billion.

Trillions of dollars are required, nothing less than the total replacement of the energy infrastructure will do. Moreover, an important - and all together ignored component - is addressing poverty.

50% of the world right now gets its access to energy from burning sticks and garbage, not to mention the use of slash and burn agriculture. The deforestration consequences alone of this point source activity has had a huge consequence.