Posted by Matt Dempsey (202) 224-9797 Matt_Dempsey@Inhofe.senate.gov  

The history behind EPA’s proposed endangerment finding dates back to 1999, when the International Center for Technology Assessment, joined by Greenpeace, the Green Party of Rhode Island, the Earth Day Network, and 15 other organizations, filed a petition with EPA demanding that it regulate greenhouse gas emissions from “new motor vehicles.” (The petition was inspired, we should note, by the “Cannon” memo that said CO2 is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, and EPA could regulate it.)  These groups urged the “[EPA] Administrator to reduce the effects of global warming by regulating the emission of greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles.”  In the landmark Supreme Court case of Massachusetts v. EPA, they successfully argued that auto emissions were causing global warming, which, in turn, was eroding Massachusetts coastline.  The remedy, they said, was to control greenhouse gas emissions from cars.  All of this begs an obvious question: what effect would EPA regulation of tailpipe emissions actually have on global temperature?   

FACT: In recent testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee on the climate impacts of regulating carbon emissions, Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama-Huntsville found that such regulations would be “an undoubtedly expensive proposition” and would have “virtually no climate impact.”  As Christy said, “I calculated, using IPCC climate models, that even if the entire country adopts these rules, the net impact would be at most one hundredth of a degree by 2100.   Further, he said, “even if the entire world did the same, the effect would be less than four hundredths of a degree by 2100, an amount so tiny we cannot even measure it with instruments, let alone notice it in any way.” 

 

# # #