An example:

The Environmental Protection Agency announced a new tool Wednesday that makes public for the first time detailed information about greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and other sources.

Mandated in a 2008 spending bill, the greenhouse-gas reporting program requires that large power plants, refineries and other facilities report their emissions to the agency. Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide are blamed for climate change.

EPA released the facilities’ 2010 greenhouse gas emissions data Wednesday in the form of a searchable database.

Gina McCarthy, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, told reporters that the data will “will be a strong driver for greenhouse gas reductions.”

“The GHG Reporting Program data provides a critical tool for businesses and other innovators to find cost- and fuel-saving efficiencies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and foster technologies to protect public health and the environment,” McCarthy said in a statement.

via thehill.com

It is a cool tool, but I have my doubts that it “will be a strong driver for greenhouse gas reductions.”

Posted in ,
  1. willwheels Avatar

    It will be interesting to see what research eventually says about this. My take on the TRI research is that it did lead to reductions (although it’s very difficult to disentangle), but with GHG being so non-local, there may be less pressure on facilities to reduce emissions.
    These are my opinions, obviously, and don’t necessarily represent the opinions of anyone else. (I didn’t look to see if the RIA predicted reductions.)

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Environmental Economics

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading