So a rule can be: Emitters of more than 25,000 tons per year must install the best available technology. Emitters of 250 tons up to 25,000 tons per year are allowed to operate as usual.

There is a more important problem with the “best available technology” phrase. Does this mean that electric power producers have to shift from coal burning equipment to natural gas? And this would be without regard to cost?

Handling of things seems to be not happening in the best possible way.

If I do say so, you aren’t reading my comments well or answering with facts sufficient to answer the question.

First, there is still a very large difference in some important sectors between the volumes generated by only the threshold-meeting facilities and those generated by the entire sector. The difference is least (as I said and you have also described) in the power-generation sector, and we both understand that quite well. Indeed, the difference may be very small or even nil in that sector. But, the difference is huge in transportation (as we both seem to agree), and it is in-between (although not small) in the agricultural, commercial, and industrial sectors.

You are, to a degree, predefining the answer to the very question by assuming that, even in those sectors (commercial, industrial), all or nearly all facilities are threshold-meeting. That is (in all likelihood) FAR from the case, because those sectors are broadly defined and, although small is small, there is a lot of “small” out there IN THOSE SECTORS. By assuming that all facilities in those sectors are threshold-meeting, you are answering the question only by your own assumption, not by fact. Indeed, that’s the very question that I’m raising.

If you can list the facilities that you say you saw in that book, and their amounts, that is (indeed) the request that I made in my initial post.

Also, the information that I have (regarding 2005, from the McKinsey report) show that the emissions from transportation and agriculture alone are well over 30% of the total in the U.S. So, (although some agricultural facilities are quite large, of course, though there are also many small ones), the facilities in the other sectors would nearly ALL have to be threshold-meeting for the 70% figure to even have a chance of being correct.

That said, the point of my original post, of course, was to seek facts (lists, clear comments from the E.P.A, a detailed report), not to seek conceptual arguments based on sector totals and assumptions about facility sizes.

Also, to be clear, and in contrast to what one of your comments suggests, I’m NOT saying that the E.P.A.’s own statement was wrong. That statement was (or could be) quite correct. What I’m saying is this: I think that some people have MISinterpreted the E.P.A.’s statement to mean something that it doesn’t, or doesn’t necessarily, mean. The E.P.A.’s own statement, itself, didn’t say (as far as I can remember this morning) that 70% (or over) of the GHG emissions come specifically from facilities of the size that meet their threshold. Instead, they said something along the lines that 70% or so of the emissions come from the segments that those facilities are a part of. It was the OTHER statements (the interpretations) that got the matter incorrect, or at least that’s the question I’m raising. Many people “jumped” from the E.P.A.’s statement to a statement that those large facilities themselves generate the percentage in question.

So, all that said, if you can provide a list of the threshold-meeting facilities themselves that shows that they generate 70% of total emissions (from the book you read, if it has such a list; or from a more recent report; or from the E.P.A. itself), that would answer the question. Or, better yet, a reported can ask the E.P.A. for clarification:

How much is generated by the facilities themselves, rather than by the entire segments that those facilities belong to?

It’s a simple question, and I trust that the E.P.A. knows the difference. It would be an easy question for ClimateProgress or The New York Times to ask.

Anonymous, I agree that the vast majority of genuine power plants (that actually rely on hydrocarbon-based fuels) would likely meet the threshold. But, I’m not at all willing to assume or agree that ALL, or even nearly all, commercial and industrial facilities meet such a threshold. The actual numbers would tell us, one way or another. And that’s all I’m requesting.

Be Well,

Jeff

The system has to change: States should make things other than enhancing stockholder value be more important than enhancing stockholder value. For example, the prime directive should be to enhance the survivability of the species Homo Sapiens. Corporations should be given finite life expectancies so that they cannot out-wait their humans.

What happens when computers become smart enough to become CEOs?

The EPA is doing it exactly right. Yes, we are sure of what the numbers are. I read a book recently that had all of those numbers in detail. I don’t remember the title. The federal government certainly has all the data. As a retired federal bureaucrat, I can assure you that the government has the data. Check with your local public library.

Oh, of course you can find a power plant in the lower 49 states that makes a fraction of 1000 megawatts.

Please, if you would, try to be more polite.

Now, please also be aware of the big difference between entire sectors and categorizations (e.g., “industrial processes”) and specific large-scale sources (that actually meet the high threshold) that fall within particular sectors/categorizations.

Many commercial and industrial facilities do not meet the E.P.A.’s threshold. So, you can’t really add up a total sector figure (with others) and say that the large facilities add up to such-and-so percentage, unless you actually use the figures of the large facilities, not the sectors.

In some cases, of course (especially electricity generation), the facilities are so large (usually) that the sector’s figure and the figure for large facilities within it would be about the same, I’d expect. But, in other sectors (e.g., transportation), most sources are small. And, in commercial and industrial sectors, facilities are of a mixture of sizes.

So, you comment does not address my point or question. Indeed, your comment makes the same mistake that I’m trying to point out. What I’d like to see from someone (the E.P.A.?) is this: The CO2 emissions that come specifically from the large facilities in question. Even the initial E.P.A. announcement preserved this distinction, although didn’t make it clearly enough for others to preserve it. So, now we have people misinterpreting the figure.

That said, we can’t be positive (one way or the other) whether the actual figure comes out to be 70%, less than 70%, much less than 70%, still more than half (50%), or what. So, that final question remains open. What we can be sure of, I believe, is that a sector’s TOTAL emissions will NOT be the same as the total emissions from only the large threshold-meeting facilities WITHIN that sector. Those numbers may be close for the power-generation sector, but they won’t be the same for most other sectors, where facilities are of a range of sizes.

Thank you, Anonymous.

Be Well,

Jeff

ALL corporations are psychopaths/sciopaths/sociopaths. Only most of them are killers in their quest for the almighty dollar. Corporations are better described as totalitarian governments than as persons deserving First Ammendment and other rights. Many of them deserve the death penalty as serial killers. In particular, the coal companies deserve the death penalty for the ultimate crime of attempted genocide against the entire human race; because Global Warming has a high probability of making Homo Sapiens extinct.

I know what you’re thinking. “Is climate change really happening?” Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being greenhouse gases are the most powerful forcing we know, and the best science predicts disaster ahead, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?