Talk:Regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act

Discussion

Hi Joe,

Excellent job on your policy brief. Your narrative explains very well the complicated nature of climate change issues, in particular the regulatory challenges we face. Though overall, you may want to consider clarifying some sections to increase the article's accessibility for readers who have minimal background on environmental issues and climate change. You may be talking over some readers' heads:) Some areas I suggest adding clarification:

• it may seem obvious but I would explain what you mean by mobile and stationary sources when you first mention these terms.
• In your first section, I was confused by the implications of this statement "In EPA’s view, this required the Agency to make a positive or negative endangerment finding under Section 202(a) of the CAA.[6]
• Also in the first section, are you referring to the EPA when you say Agency?
• In your discussion on "Regulation of Greenhouse Gases from Mobile Sources," define "prescriptive" regulation in the narrative.
• In The Regulation of Greenhouse Gases from Stationary Sources section I didn't understand this sentence: "Upon request to reconsider this interpretation, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson confirmed that that Agency would continue to apply the interpretation expressed in the 2008 memorandum but she further clarified that the time at which a pollutant becomes a “regulated NSR pollutant” is when the requirements that control emissions of the pollutant take effect, rather than upon the promulgation of those requirements."
• In The Influence of Stakeholders . . section, clarify your point in the sentence: " That the major opposition to regulation of GHGs under the CAA is headed largely by a contingent of elected officials from major coal, oil, and gas states exemplifies the political warfare that can erupt when leaders attempt to appeal to their core constituencies even though doing so may impede action on pressing national problems.[55]
• In the same section, I was also confused by "Whether Congress will act any time soon to pass cap-and-trade legislation or revoke EPA’s authority to regulate GHGs is questionable.[44] However, even inaction by Congress in this area leaves EPA’s future options open."
• There are so many acronyms in the brief that you might want to add a glossary for acronyms, so the reader doesn't have to keep looking back for the first reference.

I hope this is helpful! Let me know if you have any questions. June Simone8855 (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This may still make DYK, if nominated very soon

This article should be eligible for appearing on the main page as a "Did you know" entry, if it is nominated it soon; it is supposed to be nominated within 5 days of being created or significantly (5x) expanded.

The instructions for nominating it are at Template talk:Did you know. Basically, all you need to do is take this code if you created a new article:

{{NewDYKnom| article= | hook=... that ? | status=new | author=  }}

or this code if you expanded it

{{NewDYKnom| article= | hook=... that ? | status=expanded | author= }}

and write the hook, a concise and interesting bit of info from the article beginning with "... that" and ending with a question mark. The info from the hook has to be present in the article and supported (in the article) with a citation. Someone will double-check to make sure the source says what it's claimed to say.

Once you've come up with a hook, fill in your username as the author and fill the title of the article, then add the above code, including your hook following the "hook=" part, to the top of the appropriate section for the day the article was started on the DYK template talk page. The code will produce an entry formatted like the others. After that, just keep an eye on the entry; if anyone brings up an issue with it, try to address it. I'll keep an eye out as well. If everything goes well, it will appear on the Main Page for several hours a few days from now.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Resource for Jobs v. Environment

A Debate Arises on Job Creation and Environment by Motoko Rich and John Broder in the NYT published: September 4, 2011 ... some excerpts

What’s more, some economists say, previous regulations, like the various amendments to the Clean Air Act, have resulted in far lower costs and job losses than industrial executives initially feared.

For example, when the Environmental Protection Agency first proposed amendments to the Clean Air Act aimed at reducing acid rain caused by power plant emissions, the electric utility industry warned that they would cost $7.5 billion and tens of thousands of jobs. But the cost of the program has been closer to $1 billion, said Dallas Burtraw, an economist at Resources for the Future, a nonprofit research group on the environment. And the E.P.A., in a paper published this year, cited studies showing that the law had been a modest net creator of jobs through industry spending on technology to comply with it. ... Mr. Greenstone (Michael Greenstone, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology) has conducted one of the few studies that actually measure job losses related to environmental rules. In researching the amendments to the Clean Air Act that affected polluting plants from 1972 and 1987, he found that those companies lost almost 600,000 jobs compared with what would have happened without the regulations.

But Mr. Greenstone has also conducted research showing that clean air regulations have reduced infant mortality and increased housing prices, and indeed many economists argue that job losses should not be considered in isolation. They say the costs of regulations are dwarfed by the gains in lengthened lives, reduced hospitalizations and other health benefits, and by economic gains like the improvement to the real estate market.

99.181.138.36 (talk) 02:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

See Fossil-fuel power station and Fossil fuels lobby with climate change denial. 64.27.194.74 (talk) 20:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

This detracts from the potential relevance of the article quoted.—Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Cost-benefit analysis of having a future ... see The Price of Everything: Solving the Mystery of Why We Pay What We Do by Eduardo Porter ISBN 978-1591843627. See Chapter Nine - The Price of the Future. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Relevance of this to either your previous reference or the article is ....?—Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

See also William Nordhaus and Stern Review. 99.181.156.11 (talk) 02:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

In general, see Economics of global warming. 99.19.43.188 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC).

Why was this removed?

The decision was upheld in the United States courts of appeals in June 2012.

99.109.125.124 (talk) 07:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

1. It's not correct, even if it the source. It's a specific Appellate Circuit.
2. It's not that relevant.

—Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

What? "even if it the source"? The reference is the New York Times. Whether the Act is enforced (it is since upheld) is central to this Regulation of greenhouse gases. 99.181.132.75 (talk) 06:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

What you claim the source said is clearly false. The correct link (and what the sources actually said) is the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia , rather than the United States courts of appeals. We do not need to include false statements, even if made by a normally reliable source. And you didn't touch point 2.—Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

United States courts of appeals#Circuit composition ... not "false". 99.119.131.109 (talk) 00:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, false. And the fact that both of the references had the correct information, and only one had the incorrect information, suggests that you're still trying to get your wording in place, even if demonstrably wrong.—Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Please write in english. This isn't a true/false math logic test. Whether the regulation passes repeal attempt is clearly relevant to this article. Your behavior is Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. 02:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.181.143.14 (talk)

Let me break try to explain it, even though anyone with sufficient knowledge of English to be able to edit here competently should be able to understand what I said.

1. You have repeatedly added the same text, which is not in the source, and is wrong per se, even after being told those facts, and after given a correct (although still not necessarily relevant) addition.
2. This fact suggests that you have no intention of following Wikipedia policies and guidelines, or of improving the encyclopedia.

I don't think I can break it down more than that.—Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

"Let me break try to explain it"? "wrong per se (in itself)"? What??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.119.128.189 (talk) 04:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Timeline and article appear to be sadly out of date

The timeline and this article overall appear to be sadly out of date (most recent substantive edits were done years ago), and would benefit from a substantial refreshing from someone with familiarity with the topic. For example, the White House Climate Action Plan substantially altered the timeline, and is not referenced at all in this article. Tobeprecise (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at San Francisco State University supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)