W285 CascadeLanaDOro ArcticHat

DesignedbyDianeZangl

LanaDOroArcticHat byDianeZangl
FairIslemotifsgoverticalinthiswinterset.Thehatisshapedatthetopbymeansofequallyspaced decreases.Thehemmedbrimaddsextrawarmthattheloweredge.Mittensareworkedasatraditional Northernmanner,withthumbgussetsandashapedtop.Smallchcksdecoratethepalm;thehemmedcuff repeatsthehatssilhouette.

SKILLLEVEL SIZE

Hat:Womansonesizefitsmost Mitts:S/M(M/L) Instructionsaregivenforsmallestsize,withlargersizesinparentheses.Whenonly1numberisgiven,it appliestoallsizes.Modelshowninsize

FINISHEDMEASUREMENTS

Hat: 20circumference Mitts: Length:9(9) Circumference:6(7)
MATERIALS CascadeLanaDOro(50%superfinealpaca,50%wool)50g/110ydsperhank:2hankseach#1064Denim Heatherand#1086GrayHeather Size4(3.5mm)16circularanddoublepointedneedles Size5(3.75mm)16circularanddoublepointedneedlesorsizeneededtoobtaingauge Stitchholdersandmarkers
26stsx26rnds=4incolorpatwithlargerneedles Tosavetimeandensureproperfit,taketimetocheckgauge.

DESIGNERNOTES

Whenworkingcolorpattern,carryyarnslooselyacrossbackofworktoavoidpuckering.

STITCHGLOSSARY

CDD(CenteredDoubleDecrease):Sl2ststogknitwisetoRHneedle,knitnextst,pass2slstsoverknit st.Thecenterstwilllieontop. Pm:Placemarker. M1L(Make1Left):MakeaclockwiseloopandplaceonRHneedle. M1R(Make1Right):MakeacounterclockwiseloopandplaceonRHneedle. PalmPattern: Rnd1:K1blue,*k1gray,k1blue;repfrom*asdirected. Rnd2:K1gray,*k1blue,k1gray;repfrom*asdirected. RepRnds12forpat.
Withgrayandsmallercircularneedle,caston120sts.Join,placingmarkerbetweenfirstandlastst. WorkeveninStstfor14rnds.Purl1rnd. ChangetolargerneedleandworkevenfromChartAthroughRnd13.Foldhemtoinsideofhat. Joiningrnd:InsertRHneedleintonextst,thenintofirstcastonst,k2togwithblue.Continuetowork k2togaround,joiningbothlayers. WorkRnds1517ofChartA. ReferringtoChartB,[workfromAtoB]4times.
BegintopdecsonRnd35,changingtodpnwhennecessary.16stsaredecreasedeveryrnd4times,then8 stsaredecreasedeveryrnd3times.WorkaCDDasafinaldeconRnd38insmallpanel,andonRnd42of largepanel24stsremainwhenalldecshavebeencompleted.Note:Decsaremadebyworkingsskon leftslantingdiagonalsandk2togonrightslantingdiagonals.Alwaysworkdecreaseswithgraysothe3 verticallinesbetweenpanelsremainconstant.(seephotoabove) Nextrnd:Withgray,k2togaround12sts. Cutyarnanddrawthroughremainingststwice.

ChartB

ChartA

ChartC

AS GOES THE ARCTIC, SO GOES THE PLANET
B.The effects of climate change currently being felt first in the Arctic are predicted to affect the public health and welfare in the United States and, ultimately, the world... 1.In addition to reducing albedo, warming in the Arctic may trigger three other positive feedback loops that will accelerate warming worldwide.... a.Warming from sea ice loss will likely accelerate melting of terrestrial ice and snow, including the Greenland ice sheet, which would further reduce Arctic albedo, accelerate warming, and raise sea level.. b.Accelerated Arctic warming related to the loss of sea ice may release greenhouse gases from thawing permafrost and decomposition of methane hydrates, which would further contribute to Arctic and worldwide warming... c.Arctic warming from albedo changes will likely increase the frequency and size of wildfires at high latitudes.. 2.Arctic warming will likely alter global climate patterns by changing atmospheric circulation and potentially changing ocean circulation. 3.Changes to Arctic ecosystems are likely to reverberate globally by affecting migratory species... .
4.Residents of other parts of the world are harmed by climate change as well as the disruptions to Arctic peoples and ecosystems it causes. 53
III.EPA should promulgate comprehensive regulations to control emissions of greenhouse gases.... 56. A.EPA is authorized to regulate emissions of air pollutants from both mobile and stationary sources... 1.Mobile sources.... . 2.Stationary sources.... 3.Regulation.... 58 59
B.The Supreme Court has determined that greenhouse gases are air pollutants subject to regulation by EPA.. 60 C.Emissions of greenhouse gases may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the public health and welfare... 60. D.Greenhouse gas emissions from mobile and stationary sources in the United States contribute to global climate change.. 63 E.The governments actions to date have been insufficient.. 67
IV.The United States must regulate greenhouse gases in order to establish itself as a world leader in the effort to reduce atmosphere greenhouse gas concentrations to below 350 parts per million... 70 A.The United States must implement a comprehensive regulatory structure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that is equitable and strives to maintain economic opportunities.... 71 B.The United States must establish itself as a world leader.. 74

3 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Summary for Policymakers, in Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 1, 5 & 10 (2007) (emphasis in original) [hereinafter IPCC 2007b]. 4 Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under the Clean Air Act, 73 Fed. Reg. 44,354, 44,396 (July 30, 2008) (Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. Chapter I) [hereinafter ANPR]; IPCC 2007b, supra note 3, at 5. 5 S. Watt-Cloutier et al., Petition to the Inter American Commission on Human Rights Seeking Relief from Violations Resulting from Global Warming Caused by Acts and Omissions of the United States (Dec. 7, 2005), available at http://www.inuitcircumpolar.com/files/uploads/icc-files/FINALPetitionICC.pdf.
the current 385 parts per million (ppm) concentration to no more than 350 ppm.6 Petitioners recognize that such a reduction will require international cooperation. That truth, however, is not an excuse for the United States continued inaction. Instead, the United States must become a world leader in the effort to reduce atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations to a level that protects and maintains the health of the Arctic environment, including sea ice, in order to protect public health and welfare of the Arctic, the United States, and ultimately the world. The federal government, through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has both the authority and responsibility to protect the public health and welfare of the Arctic and United States from the impacts of climate change in the Arctic.7 Recently, EPA released an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) seeking public comment regarding the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.8 The ANPR was issued in response to the Supreme Courts holding that EPA does, in fact, have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases and to several petitions seeking regulation of various sources of greenhouse gases.9 This ANPR is not sufficient. Rather than seeking general comments, EPA must promulgate comprehensive regulations to protect the Arctic from the effects of climate change. It must do so in an equitable manner while striving to maintain economic opportunities and a strong economy.10 EPA has clear authority to achieve these goals by regulating greenhouse gas emissions from stationary and mobile sources under the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, Petitioners request that the EPA Administrator abide his obligations under the law by: 1. Making a finding that emissions of greenhouse gases may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the public health and welfare and that mobile and stationary sources cause or contribute to this air pollution; and 2. Promulgating comprehensive regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from mobile and stationary sources pursuant to Clean Air Act sections 202(a), 213(a)(4), 231, and 111(b).11 Taking these actions is a necessary first step for the United States toward becoming a world leader in the effort to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations to no more than 350 ppm. It is the best way to protect the Arctic, the public health and welfare, and life on Earth as it is currently known.

6 J. Hansen et al., Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim? 1 (2008), available at http://www. columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf.; see also L. Cao & K. Caldeira, Atmospheric CO2 Stabilization and Ocean Acidification, 35 Geophysical. Res. Letters. L19609 (2008). 7 This authority is granted under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(1), 7547(a)(4), 7571, 7411(b) (1990). 8 ANPR, 73 Fed. Reg. at 44,354. 9 Id. at 44,396; see also Massachusetts v. EPA, 127 S. Ct. 1438, 1459 (2007). 10 Nonetheless, in order to ensure that all relevant documentation is considered, Petitioners will submit this document and all references both as a separate petition for rulemaking and as public comments during the ANPR comment period. U.S.C. 7521(a)(1); 7547(a)(4); 7571; 7411(b). This petition is submitted pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(e), which requires federal agencies to give an interested person the right to petition for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule, the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q (1990), and the Clean Air Acts implementing regulations, 40 C.F.R. Chapter I.

PETITIONERS

As of November 17, 2008, Petitioners include an Arctic community, mayors of four cities, and international conservation organizations. Their residents, constituents, and members are affected by warming in the Arctic caused by greenhouse gas emissions.
The Native Village of Shishmaref, Alaska is home to approximately 590 people and is represented by the Indian Reorganization Act Council. It is located on Sarichef Island, in the Chukchi Sea, and is surrounded by the 2.6 million-acre Bering Land Bridge National Reserve. Archaeological excavations show evidence of Eskimo habitation at Shishmaref dating back several centuries. Today, Shishmaref remains a traditional Inupiat Eskimo village with a fishing and subsistence lifestyle. During October 1997, a severe storm eroded over 30 feet of the north shore, requiring 14 homes and the National Guard Armory to be relocated. Five additional homes were relocated in 2002, and the shoreline has continued to erode approximately 3 to 5 feet per year on the north shore. In July 2002, residents voted to relocate the community. The mayors of San Francisco, California; Juneau and Homer, Alaska; and Pacific Grove, California are the chief elected officials of their respective municipalities. The mayors know that climate change in the Arctic will affect their communities and their constituents, and they recognize the urgent need for regulation of greenhouse gas emissions in such a way that accounts for the diverse geographic, social, and economic conditions in their cities. Oceana is a nonprofit international advocacy organization dedicated to protecting and restoring the worlds oceans through policy, advocacy, science, law, and public education. Oceana has over 280,000 members and supporters around the world. Oceanas Pacific Team is headquartered in Juneau, Alaska and includes scientists, Alaska Native leaders with extensive traditional knowledge, attorneys, and policy advisors with more than 200 years of collective experience living and working in Alaska. They draw on that scientific, legal, and policy experience to work with industry, government partners, and the public to forge strategies to achieve protection and sustainable living. Ocean Conservancy is a national nonprofit organization with more than 126,700 members and volunteers dedicated to protecting ocean environments and marine life. Through science-based advocacy, research, and public education, Ocean Conservancy informs, inspires, and empowers people to speak and act for the oceans. For over 30 years, Ocean Conservancy has worked to restore sustainable fisheries, protect ocean wildlife from human impacts, conserve special ocean places, and reform government for better ocean stewardship. Among other places, Ocean Conservancy has an office in Anchorage and a long history in Alaska, where it seeks to protect Arctic ecosystems and the people dependent on them.

Sea ice is fundamental to the functioning of the Arctic systems. It is the defining physical characteristic of the marine Arctic environment.34 Each year, sea ice forms during the winter months and melts back during the summer, and people living along the Arctic coast have always known an Arctic with sea ice: Ice is a supporter of life. It brings the sea animals from the north into our area and in the fall it also becomes an extension of our land. When it freezes along the shore, we go out on the ice to fish, to hunt marine mammals, and to travel. When it starts disintegrating and disappearing faster, it affects our lives dramatically.35 Arctic people use sea ice as an extension of land for traveling, fishing, and hunting.36 They depend on this aspect of their landscape.37
30 See Determination of Threatened Status for the Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) Throughout Its Range, 73 Fed. Reg. 28,212 (May 15, 2008) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. pt. 17) [hereinafter Polar Bear Listing Decision]; 50 C.F.R. 17.11(h) (2007) (bowhead whale and Stellers eider); see also 50 C.F.R. 17.959(b) (designation of critical habitat for Stellers eider). 31 See Notice of 90Day Finding on a Petition to List the Three Ice Seal Species as a Threatened or Endangered Species, 73 Fed. Reg. 51615 (Sept. 4, 2008) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. pts. 223, 224); Associated Press, Group Seeks Protection for Walrus Under Endangered Species Act, Seattle Times, Feb. 7, 2008, available at http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004169987_webwalrus07m.html 32 B.A. Bluhm & R. Gradinger, Regional Variability in Food Availability for Arctic Marine Mammals, 18 Ecological Applications, S77, S83-84, S86-87 (2008); K.L. Laidre et al., Quantifying the Sensitivity of Arctic Marine Mammals to Climate-induced Habitat Change, 18 Ecological Applications S97, S98-99 (2008); ACIA 2005, supra note 25, at 456, 496-97. 33 B.A. Bluhm & R. Gradinger, supra note 32, at S83-84; ACIA 2005, supra note 25, at 490-97. 34 Polar Bear Listing Decision, 73 Fed. Reg. at 28,219. 35 ACIA 2004, supra note 2, at 24. 36 Id. at 94-95. 37 Id.; see also ACIA 2005, supra note 25, at 659-60.

140 141

These seals, in turn, are an important component of polar bear diets. Thus, impacts to seals will cause effects further up the food chain. Loss of sea ice is very likely leading to declines in these seals, and ice seals currently are under consideration for protection under the Endangered Species Act.150 The rapid and early sea ice loss that has occurred since 2004 in the Bering and Chukchi seas also may be affecting walrus recruitment, distribution, and abundance.151 Walruses, especially females nursing pups, use sea ice as a mobile platform from which to feed on the rich benthic productivity of the shallow northern Bering and Chukchi sea floors.152 Walruses are unable to forage in the open ocean because they need a place to haul out and rest between foraging bouts.153 They follow the sea ice edge as it melts northward in the spring and summer and southward as it freezes in the fall and winter.154 In 2007, sea ice retreated far offshore in the Chukchi Sea to a place where ocean depth and lack of food made it impossible for walruses to feed. Instead of following the sea ice, many walruses came to shore congregating in large haulouts,155 where disturbances led to stampeding and crushing of thousands of pups and juveniles. In addition to higher mortality rates from stampeding, a shift to using terrestrial haulouts will reduce foraging areas to coastal margins, potentially leading to increased food limitation.156 In 2007, other walruses, followed remotely by satellite tags, remained in sparse ice patches above important feeding areas near the continental shelf,157 and walrus pups were found abandoned on the sea ice or in open water. Similarly, Yupik hunters on St. Lawrence Island believe that
See Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Notice of 90Day Finding on a Petition to List the Three Ice Seal Species as a Threatened or Endangered Species, 73 Fed. Reg. 51615, 51615-17 (Sept. 4, 2008) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. pts. 223, 224). 151 L.W. Cooper et al., Rapid Seasonal Sea-Ice Retreat in the Arctic Could Be Affecting Pacific Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus) Recruitment, 32 Aquatic Mammals 98, 98 (2006); S. Milius, Hey,What About Us? Theres More Life on Ice Than Celebrity Bears, 172 Sci. News No. 22 at 346 (2007), available at http://www. sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/9156/title/Hey,_What_about_Us%3F. 152 ACIA 2004, supra note 2, at 59. 153 ACIA 2005, supra note 25, at 488, 510. 154 Id. at 497. 155 Dan Joling, Walruses Flee Shrinking Ice for Shoreline, Anchorage Daily News, Oct. 5, 2007, available at http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/9355578p-9269576c.html. 156 See C.V. Jay & A. S. Fischbach, Pacific Walrus Response to Arctic Sea Ice Losses, U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet No. 2008-3041 1-2 (2008). 157 Id. at 4.

See supra pp. 22-24. See generally A.D. McGuire et al., Integrated Regional Changes in Arctic Climate Feedbacks: Implications for the Global Climate System, 31 Ann. Rev. of Envt & Res. 61, 67-68 (2006); Serreze & Francis, supra note 48, at 257. 283 Lenton et al., supra note 43, at 1786. 284 Id. 285 Hansen et al., supra note 54, at 1434.

281 282

1. In addition to reducing albedo, warming in the Arctic may trigger three other positive feedback loops that will accelerate warming worldwide. a. Warming from sea ice loss will likely accelerate melting of terrestrial ice and snow, including the Greenland ice sheet, which would further reduce Arctic albedo, accelerate warming, and raise sea level. The loss of sea ice is predicted to result in several degrees of warming over land in the Arctic.286 This warming will likely exacerbate the widespread decline in snow cover, the retreat of glaciers and melting of the Greenland ice sheet.287 In turn, the loss of snow and ice cover will further decrease the albedo of the region, which will almost certainly result in additional warming. The extent of snow cover in the Arctic has decreased by approximately 10% over the past 30 years. Most of the change results from the earlier disappearance of snow in spring. For example, in Barrow, Alaska the snow has melted approximately one month earlier on average since the 1950s.288 Earlier snow melt lengthens the snowfree season and, therefore, reduces albedo and results in additional warming.289 As the Arctic warms, snow cover will likely decline further, which would result in additional warming from reductions in albedo. In addition, Arctic warming has resulted in a decline of the volume of ice in glaciers and ice fields (regions of ice cover smaller than 50,000 km2 that feed numerous glaciers).290 Glaciers and ice fields are spread irregularly through the Arctic and cover an area of about 400,000 km2.291 Their smaller area and mass make them highly susceptible to change, and, as a result, their melting has contributed disproportionately to the loss of ice volume in the Arctic. As these glaciers and ice fields melt, new areas of dark earth are exposed to the suns rays, which changes the albedo and leads to additional warming in the Arctic. Scientists predict that further warming will lead to substantial additional loss of ice, which will, in turn, lead to more warming.

376 See IPCC 2007a, supra note 52, at 5 (stating that warming of the climate system is unequivocal and most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations). 377 Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q (1990). 378 Am. Lung Assn v. EPA, 134 F.3d 388, 388 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (quoting S. Rep. No. 91-1196, at 1 (1970)). U.S.C. 7401(b)(1) (1990). 380 Am. Lung Assn, 134 F.3d at 389 (quoting Lead Industries Assn, Inc. v. EPA, 647 F.2d 1130, 1155 (D.C. Cir. 1980)); see also H.R. Rep. 95-294, at 49 (1977). 381 H.R. Rep. 95-294, at 49 (1977). 382 See 42 U.S.C. 7411, 7521-7590 (1990). 383 Petitioners hereby incorporate the detailed discussion and arguments set forth in two Petitions previously submitted by Oceana and others. These petitions further detail the statutory authority under which regulation is permitted. See EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0318-0046 Petition for Rulemaking Under the Clean Air Act to Reduce the Emission of Air Pollutants from Marine Shipping Vessels that Contribute to Global Climate Change submitted October 3, 2007 [hereinafter Marine Vessels Petition]; EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0318-0026 Petition for Rulemaking Under the Clean Air Act to Reduce the Emission of Air Pollutants From Aircraft that Contribute to Global Climate Change submitted December 5, 2007 [hereinafter Aircraft Petition].
A. EPA is authorized to regulate emissions of air pollutants from both mobile and stationary sources. The Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to regulate emissions of air pollutants from mobile and stationary sources. The Act describes the conditions under which such regulation is permitted in several separate sections. Though expressed somewhat differently in each section, the same basic test is required: a determination that the pollutant is reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, and a determination that emissions from the sources cause or contribute to air pollution. 1. Mobile Sources. Under the Clean Air Act, mobile sources include cars, light trucks, heavy trucks and buses, motorcycles, nonroad recreational vehicles, farm and construction machines, lawn and garden equipment, marine engines, aircraft, and locomotives.384 The Act groups the regulation of emissions from these mobile sources into three categorieson-road vehicles, nonroad vehicles, and aircraft. On-road vehicles, which include cars, light trucks, heavy trucks and buses, and motorcycles, are regulated under Section That provision 202(a) of the statute.385 requires EPA to prescribe (and from time to time revise). standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.386 Emissions from nonroad vehicles, which range from marine vessels and engines to lawn and garden equipment,387 are regulated pursuant to Section 213 of the Clean Air Act.388 Under this provision, EPA sets emissions standards for pollutants from nonroad vehicles once the agency determines that any emissions [of that pollutant] from new nonroad engines or vehicles significantly contribute to air pollution which may reasonably

C. Emissions of greenhouse gases may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the public health and welfare. Since greenhouse gases are air pollutants, EPA must determine if emissions of those pollutants may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.406 The Clean Air Act sets a low bar for EPA in making this determination and allows for regulation based on a conclusion that a pollutant could endanger public health or welfare. Based on the evidence laid out above detailing the current and projected impacts of climate change on the Arctic and the world, greenhouse gases may reasonably be anticipated to endanger both the public health and welfare. The phrase may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare is explicitly intended to be precautionary. Indeed, [t]he meaning of endanger is not disputed. Case law and dictionary definition agree that endanger means something less than actual harm. When one is endangered, harm is threatened; no
42 U.S.C. 7602(g). Massachusetts v. EPA, 127 S. Ct. 1438, 1460 & 1462 (2007). 404 Id. 405 Id. 406 See 42 U.S.C. 7411 (stationary sources), 7521 (motor vehicles), 7547 (non-road vehicles), 7571 (aircraft).

402 403

actual injury need ever occur.407 By adopting the may be reasonably anticipated language, Congress buil[t] upon the precautionary and preventative goals already provided in the use of the term endanger. The Administrator is to assess current and future risks rather than wait for proof of actual harm.408 Thus, proof of actual harm is not required, and regulation of air pollution should precede, and, optimally, prevent the perceived threat.409 Moreover, EPA cannot justify a refusal to act to protect the public health or welfare based on uncertainty. [R]equiring EPA to wait until it can conclusively demonstrate that a particular effect is adverse to health before it acts is inconsistent with both the Acts precautionary and preventive orientation and the nature of the Administrators statutory responsibilities. Congress provided that the Administrator is to use his judgment. precisely to permit him to act in the face of uncertainty.410 Congress directed the Administrator to err on the side of caution in making the necessary decisions.411 Indeed, [a]ll that is required by the statutory scheme is evidence in the record which substantiates [the Administrators] conclusions about the health effects on which the standards were based.412 In this case, emissions of greenhouse gases may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare by causing warming and climate changes in the Arctic that affect people and ecosystems in the Arctic, the rest of the United States, and the world. As the United States government has recognized, [w]arming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.413 It further described climate change [a]s a serious global challenge.414 As explained above, dramatic changes as a result of this warming are occurring in the Arctic, which is warming, on average, at about twice the rate as the rest of the world.

See IPCC 2007c, supra note 421 at 20; Hansen 2005, supra note 57, at 274. 42 U.S.C. 7602(h) (emphasis added). 425 See supra pp. 57-59; see also Marine Vessels Petition, supra note 383, at 16-17 & n. 71 (analyzing the contribution language of 213). In addition, for certain sources or groups of sources, EPA must determine that the source contributes significantly, and for others, the finding of significance is not required. For motor vehicles, EPA must determine that an air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines cause or contribute to air pollution. 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(1). For nonroad vehicles and engines, EPA must determine whether the vehicles or engines significantly contribute to air pollution and then whether individual class or categories of nonroad vehicles or engines cause[] or contribute to air pollution. Id. 7547(a)(4). For aircraft, EPA must determine whether aircraft engines cause[ ], or contribute[ ] to, air pollution. Id. 7571(a)(2)(A). For stationary sources, EPA must determine if a category of sources causes, or contributes significantly to, air pollution. Id. 7411(b)(1)(A). Because these sources satisfy the more stringent significantly contribute test, the distinction is not explained here.

423 424

In the aggregate, in 2006, the United States was responsible for emitting more than 7 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases.426 As of 2004, the United States accounted for approximately 22 percent of carbon dioxide emissions worldwide.427 In 2000, United States emissions of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) accounted for 9.5 and 12.4 percent of the global total, respectively, and just over a third of global hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexaflouride (SF6) combined emissions came from the United States.428 The United States also accounts for roughly 6 percent of global emissions of black carbon-containing soot emissions.429 Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Gas 1990-2004430 These emissions have been rising steadily just in the last decade and are projected to continue to increase.431 Overall, total U.S. GHG emissions have risen by 14.7% from 1990 to 2006.432
Indeed, absent some change in practice, gross emissions of greenhouse gases from the United States are projected to rise an additional 30 percent between 2000 and 2020.433 As the federal government has acknowledged, [f] uture projections show that, for most scenarios assuming no additional GHG emission reduction policies, atmospheric concentrations of GHGs are expected to continue climbing for
See ANPR, 73 Fed. Reg. at 44,401; Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2006, at ES-6 (April 15, 2008) available at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ downloads/08_ES.pdf. [hereinafter EPA Inventory]. These emissions are measured in CO2 equivalents, which standardizes the measurements according to the gases warming potential. In addition, approximately 900 million metric tons of these emissions were subsumed by carbon sinks and, therefore, did not reach the atmosphere. Id. 427 Energy Information Administration, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States Report 2006, DOE/EIA-0573(2006), Table 3 (November 2007), available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/ oiaf/1605/ggrpt. 428 See EPA, 2006 Global Anthropogenic Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 1990-2020, June 2006 Revised, at 1-3 & Table 1-2 (2006); see also EPA Inventory, supra note 426, at 2-3 2-4. 429 Hearing on Black Carbon and Arctic, Before H. Comm. on Oversight and Government Reform, 110th Cong. (2007) (statement of Mark Z. Jacobson) Table 3, available at: http://oversight.house.gov/story. asp?ID=1550. This information excludes aircraft and shipping, which are major contributors of black carbon. 430 EPA, GHG Fast Facts, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks (2008), available at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads/2008_GHG_Fast_Facts.pdf. 431 Id.; United States Department of State,Fourth Climate Action Report to the UN Framework Convention on Climate ChangeChapter 5 63-64 (2006)[hereinafter Fourth Climate Action Report]. 432 ANPR, 73 Fed. Reg. at 44,401 (Greenhouse gases are abbreviated GHG.). 433 See Fourth Climate Action Report, supra note 431, at 64.

most if not all of the remainder of this century, with associated increases in average temperature and that [o]verall risk to human health, society and the environment increases with increases in both the rate and magnitude of climate change.434 Accordingly, greenhouse gas emissions in the United States clearly contribute significantly to climate warming and will continue to do so in the future. EPA has identified 17 key categories of sources of greenhouse gas emissions for the years 1990-2006.435 By definition, key categories are sources. that have the greatest contribution to the absolute overall level of national emissions[.]436 For 2006, the 17 key categories together account for 95 percent of the United States greenhouse gas emissions.437 These 17 categories and their contributions to United States emissions are depicted in the figure below. Mobile and stationary sources of emissions subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act are clearly significant and cause and contribute to air pollution. By regulating these sources, EPA could substantially reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Key Sources of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 2006438
For purposes of developing regulations, it may be useful to organize the emissions by economic sector. EPA has taken that approach in its emissions inventory: [a]ll U.S. [greenhouse gas] sources can be grouped into the electricity, industrial, commercial, residential, transportation and agriculture sectors. Additionally, there are changes in carbon stocks that result in emissions and sinks associated with land-use and land-use change activities.439
ANPR, 73 Fed. Reg. at 44,396 See EPA Inventory, supra note 426, at 1-12 1-13 & Table 1-4. 436 Id. at ES-19. 437 See infra note 440. 438 EPA Inventory, supra note 426, at Figure ES-16. 439 Id. at 44,402.

434 435

Overview of Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector440
GHG Emissions (Tg CO2 Eq.) Sector/Activity Energy: Stationary Coal Combustion Natural Gas Combustion Petroleum/Oil Combustion Non-Energy Use, Fossil Fuels Natural Gas Systems Coal Mining Petroleum Systems Municipal Solid Waste Comb. All Other Sources Energy: Mobile Road and Other Aviation Marine Transport Agricultural Uses Agricultural Soil Management Enteric Fermentation Manure Management All Other Sources Industrial Processes Subs. of Ozone Depl. Subs. Iron and Steel Production Cement Manufacture HCFC-22 Production Electrical Trans. And Dist. Ammonia Man/Urea Cons. Aluminum Production Adipic Acid Production All Other Sources Waste Landfills Wastewater Treatment All Other Sources Land Use/Forestry, Solvent Use Total Emissions Key Categories All Emissions All Emissions Minus Sinks 5100 454.3 555.3 555.367.7 367.7 110.4 124.5 124.5 6.1 6.1 17.4 17.95.0 100.25.5 24.6 38.4 1.9 151.2 125.7 8.1 1.8 8.7 12.4 3.9 5.9 15.6 9.9 0.3 3.6 4.2 2.5 49.1 45.7 13.8 13.2 149.5 126.2 41.5 6.7 1.9 14.8 21.5 124.5 110.4 6.1 17.4 0.3 20.9 0.1643 170.6 42.4 9.1 2.5 2.2 0.2 0.1 174.4 CO594.28.5 102.4 58.5 28.4 0.4 2.5 33.1.7 0.4 279.CH4 200.7 0.7 0.9 0.7 N2O 14.7 10.1 0.6 1.1 HFCs PFCs SF6 Total 1123 596.130.9 58.5 28.7 21.3 12.1676 172.5 42.9 454.126.2 41.5 21.5 320.9 110.4 49.1 45.7 13.8 13.2 12.4 6.4 5.161.1 125.7 8.1 27.3 41.3 % 59.3 29.4 15.9 8.5 2.0 1.9 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.2 26.8 23.8 2.4 0.6 6.4 3.8 1.8 0.6 0.3 4.5 1.6 0.7 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.9 2.3 1.8 0.1 0.4 0.6

440 This information is extracted from EPA Inventory, supra note 426, at 2-3 - 2-4 & Table 2-1. All activities except Other are Key Categories for the United States (1994-2006). Totals may not be precise due to independent rounding, and blank cells indicate no emissions.
E. The governments actions to date have been insufficient. Despite the clear evidence that climate change is occurring and being caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases, the United States government has thus far refused to take action to reduce emissions. This failure goes back more than three decades and has continued with the recent issuance of an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) in which EPA seeks comment on analyses The United States and policy alternatives regarding greenhouse gas (GHG) effects and 441 regulation under the Clean Air Act. government has The federal government first began devoting serious attention to the to take action to possibility that carbon dioxide emissions associated with human activity could provoke climate change in the 1970s, and in 1978, Congress reduce emissions of enacted the National Climate Program Act which required the President greenhouse gases. to establish a program to assist the Nation and the world to understand and respond to natural and man-induced climate processes and their implications.442 The resulting study by the National Research Council was unequivocal: If carbon dioxide continues to increase, the study group finds no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible. A wait-and-see policy may mean waiting until it is too late.443 In 1987, Congress directed EPA to propose to Congress a coordinated national policy on global climate change, and ordered the Secretary of State to work through the channels of multilateral diplomacy and coordinate diplomatic efforts to combat global warming.444 In 1992, the first President Bush attended the Earth Summit and signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which is a nonbinding agreement among 154 nations to reduce atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases for the purpose of prevent[ing] dangerous anthropogenic [i.e., human-induced] interference with the [Earths] climate system.445 Five years later, in 1997, the UNFCCC signatories met and adopted the Kyoto Protocol, which assigned mandatory targets for industrialized nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.446 The United States did not sign the protocol. Thus, the United States had taken no concrete action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 1999, when the International Center for Technology Assessment and 18 other environmental and renewable energy organizations submitted a petition to EPA seeking the regulation of greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles pursuant to section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act.447 In 2003, EPA denied that

References Alaska Climate Impact Assessment Commission, Final Commission Report to the Legislature (2008), available at http://www.housemajority.org/coms/ cli/cli_finalreport_20080301.pdf. M.E. Alexander et al., The Atmospheric Response to Realistic Arctic Sea Ice Anomalies in an AGCM During Winter, 17 J. Climate 890 (2004). C.L. Archer & K. Caldeira, Historical Trends in the Jet Streams, 35 Geophysical Res. Letters 1 (2008). Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, Impacts of a Warming Arctic (2004). Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (2005). C.F. Bales & Richard D. Duke, Containing Climate Change: An Opportunity for U.S. Leadership 87(5) Foreign Affairs 78 (Sept./Oct. 2008). A.J. Benson & A.W. Trites, Ecological Effects of Regime Shifts in the Bering Sea and Eastern North Pacific Ocean, 3 Fish and Fisheries 95 (2002). T.R. Berger, Village Journey: The Report of the Alaska Native Review Commission (1985). B.A. Bluhm & R. Gradinger, Regional Variability in Food Availablity for Arctic Marine Mammals, 18 Ecological Applications S77 (2008). K. Calderia, Wildlife and Oceans in a Changing Climate: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans, 110th Cong. 6-7 (2007) (written testimony of Ken Caldeira entitled Climate Change and Acidification are Affecting Our Oceans, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution of Washington), available at http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/images/ Documents/20070417b/testimony_caldeira.pdf. K. Caldeira & M.E. Wickett, Anthropogenic Carbon and Ocean pH, 425 Nature 365 (2003). K. Caldeira & M.E. Wickett, Ocean Model Predictions of Chemistry Changes from Carbon Dioxide Emissions to the Atmosphere and Ocean, 110 J. of Geophysical Res. 1 (2005). L. Cao & K. Caldeira, Atmospheric CO2 Stabilization and Ocean Acidification, 35 Geophysical Res. Letters L19609 (2008). F.S. Chapin et al., Role of Land-Surface Changes in Arctic Summer Warming, 310 Science 657 (2005). T.R. Christensen et al., Thawing Sub-Arctic Permafrost: Effects on Vegetation and Methane Emissions, 31 Geophysical Res. Letters 1 (2004). P.L. Cochran & A. L. Geller, The Melting Ice Cellar: What Native Traditional Knowledge is Teaching Us About Global Warming and Environmental Change, 92 Am. J. Pub. Health 1404 (2002). J.C. Comiso et al., Accelerated Decline in the Arctic Sea Ice Cover, 35 Geophysical Res. Letters 1 (2008). L.W. Cooper et al., Rapid Seasonal Sea-Ice Retreat in the Arctic Could Be Affecting Pacific Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus) Recruitment, 32 Aquatic Mammals 98 (2006). T. Curtis et al., Changing Living Conditions, Lifestyle, and Health, 64 International J. of Circumpolar Health 442 (2005). S. Das et al., Fracture propagation to the Base of the Greenland Ice Sheet During Supraglacial Lake Drainage, 320 Science 778 (2008).

R.S. Stone et al., Earlier Spring Snowmelt in Northern Alaska as an Indicator of Climate Change, 107 J. of Geophysical Res. 4089 (2002). J. Stroeve et al., Arctic Sea Ice Decline: Faster than Forecast, 54 Geophysical Res. Letters 1 (2007). J. Stroeve et al., Arctic Sea Ice Extent Plummets in 2007, 89 Eos 13 (2008). J. Stroeve et al., Arctic Sea-Ice Variability Revisited, 48 Annals of Glaciology 71 (2008). M. Tedesco et al., Extreme Snowmelt in Northern Greenland During Summer, 89 EOS 391 (2008). C.M. Turley et al., Corals in Deep-Water: Will the Unseen Hand of Ocean Acidification Destroy Cold-Water Ecosystems?, 26 Coral Reefs 445 (2007). C. Tynan & D. DeMaster, Observations and Predictions of Arctic Climate Change: Potential Effects on Marine Mammals, 50 Arctic 308 (1997). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change art. 2, 31 I.L.M. 849 (May 9, 1992). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District, Alaska Village Erosion Technical Assistance Program: An Examination of Erosion Issues in the Communities of Bethel, Dillingham, Kaktovik, Kivalina, Newtok, Shishmaref, and Unalakleet (April 2006). U.S. Climate Change Science Program and Subcommittee on Global Change Research, Impacts of Climate Change and Variability on Transportation Systems and Infrastructure: Gulf Coast Study, Phase I (March 2008). U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery, Field Hearing: The State and Federal Response to Storm Damage and Erosion in Alaskas Coastal Villages, available at http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Hearings. Detail&HearingID=809e5a80-5953-479b-abf0-b8d4c61ecfdb. I. Velicogna & J. Wahr, Acceleration of Greenland Ice Mass Loss in Spring 2004, 443 Nature 329 (2006). G.J. Vermeij & P.D. Roopnarine, The Coming Arctic Invasion, 321 Science 780 (2008). K.M. Walter et al., Methane Bubbling from Siberian Thaw Lakes as a Positive Feedback to Climate Warming, 443 Nature 71 (2006). S. Watt-Cloutier et al., Petition to the Inter American Commission on Human Rights Seeking Relief from Violations Resulting from Global Warming Caused by Acts and Omissions of the United States (Dec. 7, 2005), available at http://www. inuitcircumpolar.com/files/uploads/icc-files/FINALPetitionICC.pdf. A. Witze, Losing Greenland: Is the Arctics Biggest Ice Sheet in Irreversible Meltdown? And Would We Know If It Were?, 452 Nature 798 (2008). World Health Organization, Climate & Health Fact Sheet (2005), available at http:// www.who.int/globalchange/news/fsclimandhealth/en/index.html. J. Zachos et al., Rapid Acidification of the Ocean During the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, 308 Science 1611 (2005). Q. Zhuang et al, Net emissions of CH4 and CO2 in Alaska: Implications for the Regions Greenhouse Gas Budget, 17 Ecological Applications 203 (2007). S.A. Zimov et al., Permafrost and the Global Carbon Budget, 312 Science 1612 (2006). B. Zinman, Diabetes in Indigenous Populations: Genetic Susceptibility and Environmental Change, available at http://www.d4pro.com/idm/site/vol_16,_no_1,_2004.htm. H.J. Zwally et al., Surface Melt-Induced Acceleration of Greenland Ice-Sheet Flow, 297 Science 218 (2002).