On Friday, the Environmental Protection Agency ruled that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases “may endanger public health or welfare.”

On this issue, the science is sound. Whether it’s a manmade phenomena, a natural phenomena or a combination of both, the reality is the climate is changing and the consequence of inaction could be devastating to millions of people on the planet.
While there’s a global recession going on, fighting the effects of global climate change isn’t something people do when economic times are good. It’s something that must be accomplished — good times or bad times.
The findings that greenhouse gases contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health or welfare were the results of the EPA conducting a thorough scientific review ordered in 2007 by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The proposed finding, which now moves to a public comment period, identified six greenhouse gases that pose a potential threat.
“This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson.  “This pollution problem has a solution – one that will create millions of green jobs and end our country’s dependence on foreign oil.”
And the creation of those green jobs is good news for Nebraska’s economy as the state can be one of the nation’s leading energy states with ethanol production, wind energy and solar.
According to the EPA, the proposed endangerment finding states, “In both magnitude and probability, climate change is an enormous problem. The greenhouse gases that are responsible for it endanger public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act.”
EPA’s proposed endangerment finding is based on rigorous, peer-reviewed scientific analysis of six gases – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride – that have been the subject of intensive analysis by scientists around the world.
In a world where both ends of the political spectrum insist on “sound science”, the EPA scientific findings clearly show “that concentrations of these gases are at unprecedented levels as a result of human emissions, and these high levels are very likely the cause of the increase in average temperatures and other changes in our climate.”
We can haw and hem all we want to about this, but around the world, the signs are there and the consequences are very real.
The EPA scientific analysis also confirms that climate change impacts human health in several ways.
Findings from a recent EPA study titled “Assessment of the Impacts of Global Change on Regional U.S. Air Quality: A Synthesis of Climate Change Impacts on Ground-Level Ozone,” for example, suggest that climate change may lead to higher concentrations of ground-level ozone, a harmful pollutant.
Additional impacts of climate change include, but are not limited to:
— Increased drought.
— More heavy downpours and flooding.
— More frequent and intense heat waves and wildfires.
— Greater sea level rise.
— More intense storms.
— Harm to water resources, agriculture, wildlife and ecosystems.
In proposing the finding, Jackson said EPA also took into account the disproportionate impact climate change has on the health of certain segments of the population, such as the poor, the very young, the elderly, those already in poor health, the disabled, those living alone and/or indigenous populations dependent on one or a few resources.
In addition to threatening human health, the EPA analysis finds that climate change also has serious national security implications.
Consistent with this proposed finding, in 2007, 11 retired U.S. generals and admirals signed a report from the Center for a New American Security stating that climate change “presents significant national security challenges for the United States.”
Those 2007 findings found that as a result of global warming escalating violence in destabilized regions can be incited and fomented by an increasing scarcity of resources – including water. This lack of resources, driven by climate change patterns, then drives massive migration to more stabilized regions of the world, according to the military.
According to Jackson, the proposed endangerment finding now enters the public comment period, which is the next step in the deliberative process EPA must undertake before issuing final findings.
Jackson said the proposed finding does not include any proposed regulations. Before taking any steps to reduce greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, she said EPA would conduct an appropriate process and consider stakeholder input.
But there’s always unintended consequences from changes in government policies. It only makes sense that some of the same industries contributing to the problem of global warming will be the ones hurt most from any government program dealing with greenhouse gas emissions.
Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb., is concerned that ruling will allow EPA to make future regulations of such emissions under the Clean Air Act that could financially hurt agriculture and other industries.
That’s especially true with the biggest segment of Nebraska’s billion dollar agricultural industry — livestock production.
According to Johanns, the EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act “… would have a devastating impact on livestock producers because cattle emit methane, one of the gases the EPA proposes to regulate.”
If you want to rally public support for something, all opponents have to do is say that the ruling will raise taxes. That what Johanns called the EPA regulations, “a steep tax that would result is commonly referred to as the “cow tax.”
Johanns said the legislation he’s co-sponsoring will “prevent this regulation from adversely affecting producers by amending the Clean Air Act to preclude regulation of naturally occurring livestock emissions, including methane and carbon dioxide.”
“For a state like Nebraska, which ranks first in the nation in commercial red meat production, this EPA proposal could have devastating consequences,” Johanns said. “This ‘cow tax’ could cost farmers and ranchers tens of thousands of dollars per farm per year.”
He said with the rising costs of production, “… this could put family farms at risk of going under.”
“The legislation I am co-sponsoring applies some common sense to ensure the Clean Air Act isn’t stretched to far-reaching applications that it was never intended to cover,” Johanns said.
Similar arguments can be made for each of the six  greenhouse gases the EPA wants to regulate. But the time has come for action. New regulations have to be flexible because jobs will be effected.  Business can’t be put ahead of environmental concerns.
But environmental concerns can also create more business opportunities and jobs that those regulations will impact. Things just shift a different way. That’s the power of a free market system. It can still operate rather efficiently regardless of the barriers imposed upon it. (And that is where government regulation would really hurt.) One thing for certain, business stagnates if there’s isn’t change of some kind. It’s opportunities that create commerce. Like life, business finds a way to survive.