WEBVTT - Regulating Greenhouse Gases Under TSCA 0:00:00.120 --> 0:00:02.080 EPA is well aware of all of these things, and 0:00:02.120 --> 0:00:05.080 they're worried about it, and all the staff is running 0:00:05.080 --> 0:00:07.880 around wishing that they could do something. The problem is 0:00:07.960 --> 0:00:11.280 they felt that they didn't have the authority and that 0:00:11.400 --> 0:00:13.560 none of the laws gave the authority. And in fact, 0:00:13.720 --> 0:00:16.279 the authority has been hiding in plain sight the entire 0:00:16.360 --> 0:00:19.560 time under the Toxic Substances Act. But there was sort 0:00:19.600 --> 0:00:23.720 of a perceived wisdom that the Toxic Substances Control Act 0:00:23.760 --> 0:00:28.280 didn't work based on how the Agency got hammered over asbestos. 0:00:28.280 --> 0:00:30.319 And it was actually the agency's fault because they didn't 0:00:30.320 --> 0:00:32.000 do their due diligence, but they thought they had a 0:00:32.040 --> 0:00:32.960 slam dunk there. 0:00:33.280 --> 0:00:34.040 It didn't work. 0:00:34.280 --> 0:00:36.000 They kind of threw up their hands and say, we 0:00:36.080 --> 0:00:37.920 have to work under the Clean Air Act, which is 0:00:37.960 --> 0:00:38.960 an abysmal law. 0:00:41.800 --> 0:00:45.319 Welcome back to drill that I'm naming Westervelt. A lot 0:00:45.320 --> 0:00:50.120 of kin folks are moments waiting for the Supreme Court 0:00:50.240 --> 0:00:55.520 to rule in West Virginia versus APA. That case questions 0:00:55.960 --> 0:00:59.280 whether the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gas 0:00:59.280 --> 0:01:03.760 emissions from power plants, particularly beyond the immediate area of 0:01:03.800 --> 0:01:07.200 the plants themselves. Folks are worried the court might come 0:01:07.240 --> 0:01:10.399 down with a broad ruling that severely limits the agency's 0:01:10.400 --> 0:01:14.760 ability to regulate greenhouse gases. Period. The other end of 0:01:14.760 --> 0:01:18.559 the spectrum is entirely possible too. The case argues about 0:01:18.560 --> 0:01:24.080 a problem that no longer exists, the Clean Power Plan. Historically, 0:01:24.160 --> 0:01:26.520 when the Court is asked to rule on something that 0:01:26.600 --> 0:01:29.920 has become a moot point over the course of litigation, 0:01:30.720 --> 0:01:35.160 they opt not to rule. In this case, it's unclear 0:01:35.520 --> 0:01:38.360 which direction they'll go. While we wait to see what 0:01:38.400 --> 0:01:42.440 will happen there, it's important to remember a couple of things. First, 0:01:42.760 --> 0:01:47.920 West Virginia versus EPA deals specifically with the Clean Air Act. Historically, 0:01:48.000 --> 0:01:50.480 the Clean Air Act is the law that's been invoked 0:01:50.560 --> 0:01:53.680 in various efforts to deal with greenhouse gases, and for 0:01:53.760 --> 0:01:56.680 obvious reasons, if you're trying to regulate something that's released 0:01:56.680 --> 0:01:59.360 into the air, it makes sense to invoke the law 0:02:00.240 --> 0:02:03.760 to protect the air. But first of all, the EPA 0:02:03.880 --> 0:02:09.040 absolutely can continue to regulate particulate matter under the Cleaner Act. 0:02:09.360 --> 0:02:11.600 That's a type of air pollution that's produced by the 0:02:11.600 --> 0:02:15.840 same activity that produces greenhouse gas emissions. The combustion of 0:02:15.919 --> 0:02:19.880 fossil fuels. And secondly, the Cleaner Act is not the 0:02:19.919 --> 0:02:23.480 only law that's relevant here in the intro there you 0:02:23.560 --> 0:02:27.639 heard former EPA scientist Don Viviani speaking at a press 0:02:27.680 --> 0:02:29.840 conference earlier this month. 0:02:30.400 --> 0:02:33.799 I was actually director of Climate Policy Assessment Division for 0:02:34.280 --> 0:02:35.320 a while in the nineties. 0:02:35.720 --> 0:02:39.120 Vivianni says, climate advocates have been sleeping on a law 0:02:39.240 --> 0:02:42.720 that might actually be better suited than the Clean Air 0:02:42.760 --> 0:02:47.520 Act to deal with climate change, the Toxic Substances Control Act, 0:02:47.880 --> 0:02:49.560 or TOSCA, And this. 0:02:49.600 --> 0:02:51.840 Sort of problem is exactly the thing that task was 0:02:51.880 --> 0:02:55.720 designed for. Congress knew that there were problems out there 0:02:55.720 --> 0:03:00.639 that were multimedia, multi program that a single media act 0:03:00.960 --> 0:03:05.840 couldn't handle, and that we needed something more expansive. It 0:03:05.919 --> 0:03:08.000 was designed to take care of things that the other 0:03:08.120 --> 0:03:11.480 laws weren't properly taken care of. And if you look 0:03:11.520 --> 0:03:14.160 back at the history of climate it's quite clear then 0:03:14.200 --> 0:03:16.080 none of the other laws are taking care of this. 0:03:16.560 --> 0:03:19.200 So this is exactly what TOSCO was designed to do. 0:03:20.880 --> 0:03:24.760 Actually, Vivianni has signed on to a petition being filed 0:03:24.760 --> 0:03:29.880 with the EPA today requesting that the agency regulate greenhouse 0:03:29.919 --> 0:03:35.160 gas emissions under TOSCA. Other petitioners include climate scientists doctor 0:03:35.280 --> 0:03:39.880 James Hansen and climate accountability expert Richard Heaty, who authored 0:03:39.880 --> 0:03:43.760 the famed Carbon Meter's report, which pinpointed the seventy companies 0:03:43.880 --> 0:03:48.200 most responsible for climate change. The petitioners are asking that 0:03:48.280 --> 0:03:51.640 the EPA acknowledged the risk posed by greenhouse gases and 0:03:51.800 --> 0:03:56.800 commence rulemaking to deal with it. So TOASCA has historically 0:03:56.840 --> 0:04:00.920 applied to chemicals and materials only, notes that it has 0:04:01.000 --> 0:04:03.880 actually been used to regulate gases in the past as well. 0:04:04.280 --> 0:04:07.040 OSCAR actually was used in nineteen seventy eight for just 0:04:07.120 --> 0:04:12.920 this purpose with respect to CFCs on the ground in 0:04:13.000 --> 0:04:21.200 the rule that CFCs were endangering the ozone layer and 0:04:22.000 --> 0:04:27.560 presented a serious risk with respect to global warming. CFCs 0:04:27.720 --> 0:04:32.200 are also a gas, and therefore you know there actually 0:04:32.279 --> 0:04:38.760 is strong precedent in EPA's own actions and utilizing this 0:04:38.880 --> 0:04:42.800 statute to kickstart in the effort to get rid of 0:04:42.839 --> 0:04:48.359 that potent pollutant that has very strong greenhouse gas forcing 0:04:48.600 --> 0:04:50.760 effect as well, it. 0:04:50.720 --> 0:04:54.240 Also has the benefit of clear language that was strengthened 0:04:54.320 --> 0:04:58.200 as recently as twenty sixteen by a bipartisan effort. 0:04:58.560 --> 0:05:02.800 They just reauthorized the the Act in twenty sixteen is 0:05:02.839 --> 0:05:10.599 a bipartisan reauthorization. So clearly this is the language that 0:05:10.040 --> 0:05:13.120 was The TOSK is supposed to deal with. Unreasonable risk 0:05:13.760 --> 0:05:17.080 is recent and it was a bipartisan It was a 0:05:17.120 --> 0:05:18.400 bipartisan passage. 0:05:19.920 --> 0:05:22.880 Doctor James Hansen says he hopes this effort will give 0:05:22.920 --> 0:05:26.040 the agency the boost it needs to act before it's 0:05:26.080 --> 0:05:26.560 too late. 0:05:27.120 --> 0:05:32.560 We're so far off and that just hasn't hasn't sunk yet. 0:05:33.480 --> 0:05:42.120 And you know, even though we have International Organization Framework 0:05:42.160 --> 0:05:45.960 Convention on Climate Change and the conferences of the parties, 0:05:47.800 --> 0:05:50.840 some of the stuff that they're coming out with is 0:05:51.800 --> 0:06:00.839 pretty nonsensical. The last cop the head said, we've kept 0:06:00.880 --> 0:06:07.800 within the possibility to stay under one five degrees warming. 0:06:08.040 --> 0:06:14.640 That's absolute bullshit. There's too much inertia in the energy 0:06:14.720 --> 0:06:22.240 system and in the warming that's in the pipeline. Just 0:06:22.279 --> 0:06:26.640 because this the planet is now out of balance by 0:06:27.200 --> 0:06:32.719 an enormous amount. Doesn't sound like much a little more 0:06:32.720 --> 0:06:36.040 than a one walk per meter square, but that contains 0:06:36.040 --> 0:06:40.320 more than one degree celsius additional warming, and we're already 0:06:40.320 --> 0:06:47.120 at one point too. So yeah, we've we've passed the 0:06:47.279 --> 0:06:52.600 point of being dangerous, but we can still deal with 0:06:52.640 --> 0:07:00.440 the situation if we begin to make a fossil fuels 0:07:00.520 --> 0:07:05.440 pay their cost to society and and do that in 0:07:05.560 --> 0:07:09.840 a way which can be made global. And the United 0:07:09.880 --> 0:07:15.360 States should be the leader. We are by far the 0:07:15.440 --> 0:07:20.080 most responsible for the situation we're in, both on an 0:07:20.160 --> 0:07:25.320 absolute basis and even more so on a per capitat basis, 0:07:26.000 --> 0:07:33.000 and we're derelict in not not fescing up to that responsibility. 0:07:34.000 --> 0:07:36.760 And the government is not doing that now even though 0:07:36.800 --> 0:07:39.720 they claim, oh, we're going to reduce emission fifty Well 0:07:39.720 --> 0:07:43.360 that's you've got to do it in a way that 0:07:43.600 --> 0:07:46.880 can be made global, and we have to recognize our 0:07:46.920 --> 0:07:49.320 global responsibility, and we're not doing that. 0:07:49.480 --> 0:07:53.120 But this in today's episode, we're going to delve into 0:07:53.120 --> 0:07:56.960 this novel approach to regulating greenhouse gas emissions. After the break, 0:07:57.000 --> 0:08:00.800 I'll be joined by Attorney Dan Gelbern, Executive Director and 0:08:00.960 --> 0:08:05.440 General Council of the Climate Protection and Restoration Initiative. He's 0:08:05.600 --> 0:08:09.520 representing the petitioners. He'll walk us through the argument here 0:08:09.720 --> 0:08:11.800 and why he thinks it just might work. 0:08:12.320 --> 0:08:24.200 Stay with us. 0:08:27.400 --> 0:08:31.240 So I'm hoping that you can start with an explanation 0:08:31.360 --> 0:08:35.800 of why TOSCA is so well suited to dealing with 0:08:35.840 --> 0:08:39.160 greenhouse gas emissions, and the decision to kind of avoid 0:08:39.200 --> 0:08:43.400 the Clean Air Act in this petition certainly well. 0:08:44.679 --> 0:08:52.040 TASCA is well situated to serve as a foundational statute 0:08:52.640 --> 0:08:56.960 for a wide ranging decarbonization effort in the United States 0:08:57.760 --> 0:09:02.000 because of its very strong language and because we have 0:09:02.080 --> 0:09:06.199 gone so far beyond the level of safe atmospheric CO 0:09:06.400 --> 0:09:10.480 two and other greenhouse gas emissions, and so what is 0:09:10.520 --> 0:09:15.240 needed now is not merely tinkering at the edges, but 0:09:16.400 --> 0:09:20.000 restrictions to the point of prohibition, to the point of 0:09:20.080 --> 0:09:26.960 a phase out actually of greenhouse gas emission sources, at 0:09:27.080 --> 0:09:32.360 least the major ones, because as the Administration itself has recognized, 0:09:33.720 --> 0:09:37.640 we need not only to get to net zero in 0:09:37.720 --> 0:09:40.800 terms of CO two and other GHD emissions, but we 0:09:40.880 --> 0:09:43.240 have to get to net negative, and we have to 0:09:43.240 --> 0:09:48.040 do that as soon as possible, and certainly soon after 0:09:48.840 --> 0:09:54.760 the mid century point. So what we're trying to provide 0:09:55.040 --> 0:09:59.560 is a firm legal foundation under which these types of 0:09:59.600 --> 0:10:07.120 actions can proceed and to avoid the recurrent and protract 0:10:07.160 --> 0:10:11.920 the deadlock in Congress over any the need for any 0:10:11.920 --> 0:10:17.400 new legislation. No new legislation is needed here. Congress acted 0:10:18.120 --> 0:10:22.480 strongly in passing the Toxic Substances Control Act and in 0:10:22.559 --> 0:10:25.960 amending it just six years ago in twenty sixteen. 0:10:29.120 --> 0:10:33.520 Right, and can you talk about how some of the 0:10:33.600 --> 0:10:38.360 improvements to TOSCA helped us strengthen this petition? What were 0:10:38.360 --> 0:10:41.760 those changes in twenty sixteen, and right, and how they 0:10:41.880 --> 0:10:42.760 come into play here. 0:10:43.080 --> 0:10:46.920 Right, Let's first talk about the threshold determination that needs 0:10:46.960 --> 0:10:52.000 to be made by EPA when considering any specific chemical 0:10:52.040 --> 0:10:56.280 substances or mixtures. We are proceeding here under section twenty 0:10:56.320 --> 0:10:59.760 one of the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Citizens Provision, 0:11:01.200 --> 0:11:07.240 and it allows citizens to request that the agency commence 0:11:07.280 --> 0:11:12.959 a rule making in order to deal with chemical substances 0:11:13.080 --> 0:11:19.400 or mixtures that present a risk of injury to health 0:11:19.480 --> 0:11:23.360 or the environment. And we certainly have that here overwhelmingly 0:11:23.679 --> 0:11:27.599 with respect to the climate crisis. And so the threshold 0:11:27.679 --> 0:11:31.640 determination EPA needs to make is just that do greenhouse 0:11:31.640 --> 0:11:37.040 gas emissions and their major sources, do they present a 0:11:37.480 --> 0:11:41.880 risk of injury to health or the environment or not. 0:11:44.600 --> 0:11:49.720 When they make that determination, then that commences a rule making, 0:11:50.320 --> 0:11:53.360 and so they need to make that determination within ninety 0:11:53.440 --> 0:11:56.160 days of our filing of this petition, and then the 0:11:56.240 --> 0:11:59.559 rule making will take as long as it's necessary, and 0:11:59.600 --> 0:12:04.920 it could be several different rule makings, but Congress specified 0:12:04.960 --> 0:12:10.440 a set of requirements that need to be imposed by 0:12:11.120 --> 0:12:16.520 the agency until the point that the chemical substances and 0:12:16.960 --> 0:12:19.640 mixtures no longer present the risk of injury to health 0:12:19.640 --> 0:12:24.880 in the environment. So that's the threshold determination, and that 0:12:25.000 --> 0:12:28.720 is specifically what we're seeking in this petition now where 0:12:29.240 --> 0:12:32.680 we lay out a little bit in the petition what 0:12:32.800 --> 0:12:37.520 we think a adequate rule would look like, But with 0:12:37.559 --> 0:12:41.640 respect to the legal impact of this petition, it is 0:12:41.679 --> 0:12:46.960 simply asking for EPA's initial determination. We would then participate 0:12:46.960 --> 0:12:50.480 in the rule making process, as would perhaps a number 0:12:50.520 --> 0:12:54.480 of other people, to attempt to ensure the strongest and 0:12:54.559 --> 0:12:59.160 most adequate rule to address this crisis. 0:13:00.840 --> 0:13:05.160 Right, can you walk you through how this intersects with 0:13:05.960 --> 0:13:09.120 what may or may not come out from the Supreme 0:13:09.160 --> 0:13:12.880 Court this month on West Virginia versus EPA, and what 0:13:13.040 --> 0:13:17.760 sorts of legal challenges you expect to see. 0:13:17.800 --> 0:13:22.960 Certainly, well, First of all, a rule making under TOSCA 0:13:23.000 --> 0:13:26.080 does not mean that other authorities should not continue to 0:13:26.080 --> 0:13:30.600 be utilized, and in fact, the petition strongly recommends continuing 0:13:30.600 --> 0:13:33.480 to utilize the Clean Air Act and other authorities. That 0:13:33.840 --> 0:13:37.520 makes sense. There's a challenge, as you noted, right now 0:13:37.559 --> 0:13:41.920 before the Supreme Court in West Virginia versus Environmental Protection Agency. 0:13:41.920 --> 0:13:46.720 We're talking on June fifteen. Anticipate that decision any day 0:13:47.600 --> 0:13:54.400 and certainly by the first few days of July. That 0:13:54.559 --> 0:13:58.200 deals specifically with section one to eleven D of the 0:13:58.240 --> 0:14:02.679 Clean Air Act. One eleven D of the Clean Air 0:14:02.679 --> 0:14:07.079 Act has nothing to do with our petition under the 0:14:07.120 --> 0:14:11.199 Toxic Substances Control Act. One eleven D of the Clean 0:14:11.200 --> 0:14:19.640 Air Act confers authority on EPA to compel emissions controls 0:14:20.720 --> 0:14:24.800 from existing power plants. And there is a specific question 0:14:25.520 --> 0:14:32.040 as to whether the Obama EPA, in fashioning the now 0:14:32.240 --> 0:14:38.800 dormant Clean Power Plan, overstepped its bounds and read into 0:14:39.240 --> 0:14:46.080 that provision of law authority to restrict emissions outside the 0:14:46.200 --> 0:14:49.760 fence line of power plants rather than just inside the 0:14:49.800 --> 0:14:53.760 fence line of power plants. So that's a specific, fairly 0:14:54.040 --> 0:15:00.640 narrow technical issue. Those including West Virginia, number of other 0:15:00.680 --> 0:15:03.600 conservative states, and a portion of the fossil fuel industry 0:15:05.200 --> 0:15:10.360 are urging the Supreme Court in that case to rule 0:15:10.720 --> 0:15:17.280 much more broadly to say that without express language in 0:15:17.360 --> 0:15:25.040 this statute, no federal agency can really do much to 0:15:25.240 --> 0:15:32.360 restrict economic activity at the center of industrial policy within 0:15:32.640 --> 0:15:36.320 a sector of the economy. And so they're seeking to 0:15:36.760 --> 0:15:41.000 have a very broad prohibition against not only the EPA 0:15:41.120 --> 0:15:48.560 but other agencies attempts to restrict activity that even where 0:15:48.560 --> 0:15:53.000 it presents a significant risk to human health or the environment. 0:15:53.920 --> 0:15:57.280 But you know, it's very unclear to me whether the 0:15:57.320 --> 0:16:00.720 Supreme Court will take up that ivy. I'm not saying 0:16:00.720 --> 0:16:05.320 it's impossible, we will see. But the language at issue 0:16:06.000 --> 0:16:10.680 in section one to eleven D, I think, while the 0:16:10.840 --> 0:16:17.720 EPA did construe it correctly, is far more vague or 0:16:17.720 --> 0:16:21.680 ambiguous than the language that we're relying on under the 0:16:21.720 --> 0:16:26.120 Toxic Substance Control Act in our petition. All that is 0:16:26.160 --> 0:16:29.480 to say, therefore, that I think that even if the 0:16:29.520 --> 0:16:37.040 Supreme Court rules very broadly in West Virgini Universus EPA, 0:16:37.920 --> 0:16:41.200 the legal basis for our petition under the Toxic Substance 0:16:41.320 --> 0:16:43.600 Control Act should be unaffected. 0:16:46.520 --> 0:16:50.920 Right, Right, And what are some of the potential outcomes here? 0:16:51.280 --> 0:16:55.200 Okay, Well, let me first talk about what needs to 0:16:55.280 --> 0:17:01.080 happen and why this works as doctor Hanson and other 0:17:02.000 --> 0:17:06.200 climate scientists have established, and I note doctor Hanson because 0:17:06.800 --> 0:17:12.320 he's one of the co petitioners of this petition, they 0:17:12.359 --> 0:17:17.760 have established that we, as I indicated before, have already 0:17:18.400 --> 0:17:22.000 gone well into the danger zone with respect to the 0:17:22.040 --> 0:17:27.280 atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gas gases, including carbon dioxide and 0:17:27.600 --> 0:17:32.040 CO two and methane THH four and the halogenated fluoro 0:17:32.040 --> 0:17:38.879 carbons and so on. And what that means then, especially 0:17:38.880 --> 0:17:43.680 in light of the long atmospheric residency time of carbon dioxide, 0:17:43.840 --> 0:17:47.639 we need not only to phase out emissions, but we 0:17:47.720 --> 0:17:51.320 also need to remove a substantial portion of the so 0:17:51.400 --> 0:17:55.760 called legacy emissions, the emissions that remain in the air 0:17:56.720 --> 0:18:04.080 from past industrial and economic activity exxons, emissions from nineteen 0:18:04.160 --> 0:18:08.440 twenty or emissions deriving from the sale of their product 0:18:08.800 --> 0:18:13.720 gasoline oil. A substantial share of that remains in the 0:18:13.720 --> 0:18:18.080 atmosphere for millennia and there continues to heat the planet 0:18:18.920 --> 0:18:22.800 unless it is unless we work to accelerate its removal. 0:18:23.480 --> 0:18:26.919 Nature will remove it, but over hundreds of thousands of 0:18:26.960 --> 0:18:30.400 years to millions of years. We can't wait that long. 0:18:32.000 --> 0:18:36.840 So then, corresponding to the problem that we confront this 0:18:37.000 --> 0:18:40.760 petition seeks a phase out of emissions, again of course 0:18:40.840 --> 0:18:45.160 within reach of US law. This is a global problem, 0:18:45.200 --> 0:18:49.199 and we hope that the United States, and setting a 0:18:49.200 --> 0:18:54.239 good example, will strengthen international institutions that are attempting to 0:18:54.280 --> 0:18:58.040 address this problem globally. And there's good reason that that 0:18:58.080 --> 0:19:02.359 would work, both phase out emissions within reach of US 0:19:02.440 --> 0:19:07.880 law and to ensure removal of the overburden of the 0:19:07.920 --> 0:19:11.760 surf feet of atmospheric CO two that human activity is 0:19:11.800 --> 0:19:18.679 responsible for. And so the first is accomplished by imposing 0:19:20.000 --> 0:19:26.440 restrictions and to ensure a substantial phase out of continuing 0:19:26.520 --> 0:19:30.879 or new greenhouse gas emissions, and the second would be 0:19:30.920 --> 0:19:34.280 accomplished pursuant to rule making to fossil fuel industry, which 0:19:34.320 --> 0:19:36.560 is the major source of greenhouse gas emissions in the 0:19:36.640 --> 0:19:41.000 United States and in most other nations, would be required 0:19:41.720 --> 0:19:47.000 to either remove or to pay for the removal of 0:19:47.119 --> 0:19:52.840 a substantial share of its emissions. We recognize that it 0:19:52.840 --> 0:19:57.439 would probably untenable to compel the fossil fuel industry to 0:19:57.560 --> 0:20:02.520 remove all of its emissions from time immorial, and so 0:20:02.800 --> 0:20:06.920 in effect there's a burden sharing presumption in the petition, 0:20:07.760 --> 0:20:11.159 so industry would be responsible for fifty percent of their 0:20:11.240 --> 0:20:16.480 legacy emissions since nineteen ninety two, that is the date 0:20:16.880 --> 0:20:18.959 of the signing of the United Nations Frame of Convention 0:20:19.040 --> 0:20:21.880 on Climate Change, And it's a ratification in the United 0:20:21.920 --> 0:20:25.679 States Senate because that's the point at which there is 0:20:25.880 --> 0:20:32.280 absolutely no reasonable doubt that the industry was on full 0:20:32.359 --> 0:20:39.840 notice that their activity was creating a untenable situation for 0:20:39.920 --> 0:20:42.840 the planet, and that everyone was obliged to do something 0:20:42.840 --> 0:20:47.480 about it, at least arguably. So, I think it's a 0:20:47.640 --> 0:20:52.560 very reasonable, perhaps even generous compromise. In the law, where 0:20:53.760 --> 0:20:59.080 a person or a company substantially contributes to a problem 0:20:59.119 --> 0:21:04.240 that leads to the death or injury of people, the 0:21:04.280 --> 0:21:09.720 basic principle is joined several liabilities so that the entirety 0:21:09.760 --> 0:21:13.159 of the problem, that one can be held responsible for 0:21:13.200 --> 0:21:18.159 the entirety of the problem where you have substantially contributed, 0:21:18.200 --> 0:21:23.560 and then you would seek contribution from co defendants. But 0:21:23.680 --> 0:21:29.960 here we're seeking to apportion responsibility in this way so 0:21:30.040 --> 0:21:32.359 that they would be responsible for fifty percent of their 0:21:32.400 --> 0:21:36.280 emissions only since nineteen ninety two, and then that obligation 0:21:36.359 --> 0:21:43.959 would grow with time, so that soon after mid century, 0:21:44.080 --> 0:21:48.240 the industry would be responsible to remove all of the 0:21:48.240 --> 0:21:52.640 greenhouse gas emissions that results from the use as intended 0:21:52.640 --> 0:21:57.880 of their product burning coal, oil and gas. So those 0:21:57.880 --> 0:22:02.600 are the two sets of responsibilities that petitioners have in 0:22:02.640 --> 0:22:06.760 mind that would be the outcome of a rule making. 0:22:07.400 --> 0:22:16.440 It's consistent with the prescription in the three major studies 0:22:16.480 --> 0:22:20.320 that were produced this last year by the Intergovernmental Panel 0:22:20.359 --> 0:22:25.400 on Climate Change and the overwhelming consensus of the relevant 0:22:25.440 --> 0:22:29.640 scientific community that we need both the phase out emissions 0:22:29.720 --> 0:22:33.840 worldwide and we need to remove a substantial share of 0:22:33.840 --> 0:22:39.480 the overburden greenhouse gas emissions that are long resident in 0:22:39.520 --> 0:22:43.359 the atmosphere and in the ocean. So we need to 0:22:43.720 --> 0:22:50.520 essentially clean up the mess, and the major industry bears 0:22:50.600 --> 0:22:59.280 a substantial share of the burden to get that done, right, 0:22:59.600 --> 0:23:00.359 got it? Okay? 0:23:00.600 --> 0:23:05.840 Can you walk through some of the potential outcomes here? 0:23:06.440 --> 0:23:10.040 I know you're expecting legal challenges. What might those be? 0:23:10.440 --> 0:23:14.800 Well, we're in a retigious society. This is a industry, 0:23:15.000 --> 0:23:18.080 the fossil fuel industry, the predominant source of greenhouse gas 0:23:18.119 --> 0:23:23.920 emissions in this country, that is used to getting its way. 0:23:23.960 --> 0:23:27.040 On the other hand, there have been a series of 0:23:27.080 --> 0:23:34.480 successful regulatory programs that have limited the industry's unfettered right 0:23:34.640 --> 0:23:38.800 to treat the atmosphere as an open sewer, and it 0:23:38.840 --> 0:23:41.080 has adjusted well, and we believe that it would adjust 0:23:41.119 --> 0:23:43.640 well to this type of regulation. That is to say, 0:23:44.520 --> 0:23:48.639 the industry would be transformed into an energy industry. Just 0:23:48.800 --> 0:23:53.199 last week, the United Nations General Secretary called for the 0:23:53.240 --> 0:23:57.520 phase out of fossil fuels worldwide. They don't have to 0:23:57.520 --> 0:24:00.239 go to court and challenges. They could participate in good 0:24:00.280 --> 0:24:02.800 faith in the rulemaking process and we come up with 0:24:02.920 --> 0:24:12.000 a reasonable pathway to get from a disaster to safety. 0:24:13.480 --> 0:24:18.680 In the alternative, they could challenge EPA's decision. That would 0:24:18.680 --> 0:24:23.160 I think be legal insanity for them to argue that 0:24:23.440 --> 0:24:26.800 greenhouse gas emissions do not present a risk of injury 0:24:26.800 --> 0:24:30.040 to health or the environment. I think that they would 0:24:30.160 --> 0:24:33.520 certainly lose on that. We are prepared to go to 0:24:33.600 --> 0:24:40.960 court to defend a favorable agency determination, and we will 0:24:40.960 --> 0:24:44.960 do what's necessary going from one end of this country 0:24:45.160 --> 0:24:50.000 to another to galvanize the public to ensure that the 0:24:50.040 --> 0:24:54.840 administration has the political support it needs to do what 0:24:55.040 --> 0:24:58.120 is right here, and that is to take strong action 0:24:59.000 --> 0:25:05.359 to preserve our nation from the continuing threat of devastating 0:25:05.359 --> 0:25:11.720 climate change. It's within reach because of this petition and 0:25:12.000 --> 0:25:17.920 pointing out, you know, this strong tool that has been 0:25:18.119 --> 0:25:21.920 hiding in plain view. It's a tool that therefore should 0:25:21.960 --> 0:25:25.199 be used to address what the President has called an 0:25:25.200 --> 0:25:31.560 existential risk, an existential threat. So, yeah, there's possibility there 0:25:31.600 --> 0:25:35.080 will be opposition. There's also the possibility that there will 0:25:35.080 --> 0:25:39.879 be cooperation and we will join together to fashion a 0:25:40.680 --> 0:25:46.760 reasonable and timely rule to protect our country. 0:25:50.280 --> 0:25:54.400 Is there some sense to that Under TOSCA, multiple other 0:25:54.520 --> 0:26:00.359 sources of greenhouse gas emissions can be regulated, you know, 0:26:00.400 --> 0:26:02.000 beyond the power plans. 0:26:01.760 --> 0:26:06.760 To the ordering is really a question of priorities and 0:26:07.440 --> 0:26:10.240 what's the most important to be done, what's the most 0:26:10.320 --> 0:26:16.160 difficult to be done. The Toxic Substance Control Act provides 0:26:16.359 --> 0:26:20.840 significant authority to the agency to do what's necessary to 0:26:20.880 --> 0:26:25.399 protect the public and the environment from chemical substances and 0:26:25.440 --> 0:26:33.720 mixtures that are present a overwhelming threat. 0:26:34.760 --> 0:26:36.120 And so. 0:26:39.440 --> 0:26:46.320 There are diffuse sources, including in agriculture, concentrated animal feeding operations. 0:26:47.040 --> 0:26:51.400 There's a significant amount of methane that is produced there 0:26:51.480 --> 0:26:59.920 as well as CO two. But the agency would need 0:27:00.119 --> 0:27:08.000 to decide on priorities and on the ordering, and I 0:27:08.040 --> 0:27:14.080 anticipate that it would be seeking to control restrict the 0:27:14.119 --> 0:27:20.679 major sources of emissions first, which includes coal, oil and 0:27:20.720 --> 0:27:27.240 gas production and also importation and use and disposal. I mean, 0:27:27.240 --> 0:27:30.399 we dispose of the greenhouse gas emissions from the burning 0:27:30.400 --> 0:27:33.719 of coal, oil, and gas right now, predominantly by just 0:27:33.760 --> 0:27:36.920 releasing it into the atmosphere, as if the atmosphere is 0:27:36.960 --> 0:27:41.040 a free and open sewer and that needs to be 0:27:41.119 --> 0:27:46.160 phased out as rapidly as possible. But yes, the statue 0:27:46.200 --> 0:27:49.880 does provide a strong tool to the agency to address 0:27:50.920 --> 0:27:55.000 the gamut of problems arising from the production of these 0:27:55.080 --> 0:27:57.880 chemical substances, of mixtures, the greenhouse gas emissions and their 0:27:57.920 --> 0:27:58.680 major sources. 0:27:59.400 --> 0:27:59.680 Right. 0:28:01.720 --> 0:28:04.720 I think that we covered everything, But is there anything 0:28:04.720 --> 0:28:07.320 that we didn't talk about that you think is important 0:28:07.359 --> 0:28:11.400 for people to know or to understand about this petition. 0:28:15.760 --> 0:28:17.679 One of the things I would like to say, however, 0:28:18.840 --> 0:28:24.160 is that this petition also serves as something of an 0:28:24.200 --> 0:28:32.480 antidote to despair that increasingly infects a public that is 0:28:32.560 --> 0:28:35.880 knowledgeable about the scope and the severity of the crisis 0:28:35.920 --> 0:28:36.680 that we confront. 0:28:57.600 --> 0:28:59.960 That's it for this week. To read or endorse the 0:29:00.120 --> 0:29:05.680 petition and track its progress, check out cprclimate dot org. 0:29:06.080 --> 0:29:08.200 We'll bring you an update when the EPA makes a 0:29:08.240 --> 0:29:11.720 decision too before you exit out of your podcast app. 0:29:11.920 --> 0:29:13.920 If you could just take a moment to rate or 0:29:13.960 --> 0:29:17.240 review the podcast, I'd really appreciate it. It helps the 0:29:17.280 --> 0:29:21.000 show reach more listeners. Thanks for that, and thanks for listening, 0:29:21.120 --> 0:29:24.720 and we'll see you next time. Drilled is an original 0:29:24.760 --> 0:29:28.960 production of the Critical Frequency Podcast Network. Our producer is 0:29:29.040 --> 0:29:33.680 Jules Bradley, our editor is Jude Joffee, Block mixing, sound 0:29:33.680 --> 0:29:38.200 design and scoring by Peter Duff, and I'm your host 0:29:38.360 --> 0:29:42.520 and creator, Amy Westerbald. If you would like to get 0:29:42.760 --> 0:29:47.280 bonus content, ad free episodes, and access to exclusive merchandise, 0:29:47.360 --> 0:29:51.680 please check out our Patreon at patreon dot com slash drilled. 0:29:52.120 --> 0:29:54.640 You can also sign up for our newsletter at drilled 0:29:54.720 --> 0:29:58.000 podcast dot com, and you can follow us on Twitter 0:29:58.120 --> 0:30:04.440 at we are Drilled 0:30:10.840 --> 0:30:12.360 And Everything