DMX7
12-07-2009, 06:00 PM
The EPA on Monday found that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases threaten public health, a strategically timed action that is likely to resonate internationally as the world begins talks on a climate change treaty at a U.N. summit in Copenhagen.
The so-called endangerment finding triggers a requirement that the federal government regulate fossil fuel emissions under the Clean Air Act (PL 101-549) and puts new pressure on Congress to enact climate change legislation.
"The message to Congress is crystal clear: Get moving," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the point-man in efforts to write a bipartisan Senate global warming bill.
The White House has held the threat of the endangerment finding over the heads of Congress for months, and it rolled out the announcement on the first day of international climate change negotiations in Copenhagen.
With climate change legislation stalled behind the health care debate, the announcement gives President Obama something tangible to demonstrate that the U.S. is serious about following through on promises to cut carbon emissions. That could have a profound impact on the outcome of the climate negotiations -- which, in turn, could give momentum to prospects for a climate bill in the Senate.
"This is the price of admission," said Kevin Book, managing director of research at ClearView Energy Partners, a strategy and consulting firm. "We can't credibly negotiate with other countries unless we do something. Today, legally speaking, we will have done something. The final endangerment finding means that we will have committed irrevocably to action. And the first and most likely response is that Congress will pass a new law. This is a checkmate for Congress."
EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson called the findings "long overdue" and said they "cement 2009's place in history as the year when the United States Government began addressing the challenge of greenhouse-gas pollution and seizing the opportunity of clean-energy reform."
But many lawmakers, business organizations and interest groups see the blunt instrument of EPA regulation as a nightmare scenario. They would prefer Congress to write legislation that they could play a significant role in shaping.
"It means we can't ignore the issue," said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill. "If we don't come up with a reasonable way to reduce [carbon dioxide] and greenhouse gas emissions working with business and labor and interest groups, then we may face decisions by the EPA which are very tough on a lot of people."
The EPA said its finding reflects a thorough examination of the scientific evidence and careful consideration of public comment. The agency found that emissions of heat-trapping gases such as carbon dioxide can lead to longer and more intense heat waves that threaten the health of the sick, poor and elderly and can increase ground-level ozone pollution linked to such respiratory diseases as asthma.
The findings respond to a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that greenhouse gases fall within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants. The EPA action does not impose any new emission reduction requirements, but it allows the agency to proceed with rulemaking.
"I think this is going to provide incentive for people to engage on climate change," said Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D. "The prospect of EPA regulation is a significant incentive to engage, no doubt about it."
Skeptics Question the Science Republicans who have been fighting a climate bill acknowledged as much, and slammed the move.
"The elected Congress, not an administrative agency, should write the laws governing the economy's response to climate change," said Tennessee Republican Lamar Alexander, who chairs the Senate Republican Conference. "The costs of compliance with the EPA's unilateral announcement today could run into hundreds of billions of dollars a year - costs borne by average Americans through huge increases in their electric bills and at the gas pump. This is an especially bad idea when unemployment is at 10 percent."
Jackson stressed that congressional action remains the administration's first choice. While Monday's decision authorizes the EPA to set a timetable to begin curbing emissions, Jackson has not laid out a schedule and said she still hoped Congress would act first.
In attacking the EPA action, Republicans cited the recent controversy over a series of hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, in which climate scientists refer to using a "trick" to "hide the decline" in preparing some climate change data.
"Today's EPA action mimics the e-mails in one respect: It demonstrates that public relations priorities rather than straightforward science are driving U.S. policy-making on global warming," said Rep. Joe L. Barton of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee and a leading skeptic of global warming science.
"There is nothing in the hacked e-mails that undermines the science on which the decision was made," Jackson said. "This issue has not raised new questions that are not already addressed in this finding."
Jackson said skeptics are using the e-mails to sow doubts about the scientific basis for concern about global warming.
"It's no wonder that many people are confused," she said. "But raising doubts -- even in the face of overwhelming evidence -- is a tactic that has been used by defenders of the status quo for years . . . It's time that we let the science speak for itself. In making this finding, we relied on decades of sound, peer-reviewed, extensively evaluated scientific data."
Copenhagen Talks Impacted Meanwhile, Jackson said that White House hopes that timing of the announcement, on the first day of the Copenhagen talks, will send a clear signal to the rest of the world and strengthen the U.S. negotiating position.
"It also means that we arrive at the climate talks in Copenhagen with a clear demonstration of our commitment to facing this global challenge," Jackson said. "We hope that today's announcement serves as another incentive for far-reaching accords in our meetings this week."
At the center of the Copenhagen negotiations is the question of whether major carbon emitting countries will commit to binding targets for carbon emissions cuts.
While President Obama has said he intends to commit the U.S. to slashing carbon emissions in the range of 17 percent by 2020, international negotiators are wary of the promise, questioning whether Congress will follow through on enacting legislation.
The House passed legislation in June (HR 2454) mandating a 17 percent emission reduction cut by 2020, but moderate Senate Democrats from coal, farm and rust belt states have raised myriad concerns about the impact on their home-state industries.
A chief concern from many moderate Democrats has been the question of whether to commit the U.S. to cutting carbon emissions without similar commitments from the world's other major emitters, India and China.
In Copenhagen, the EPA announcement could signal to India and China that the U.S. will make the carbon cuts even without cooperation from an unwilling Congress. That could help ensure commitments from those countries - which could in turn go further to bring along the support from those critical swing vote moderates.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20091207/pl_cq_politics/politics3260419_6
The so-called endangerment finding triggers a requirement that the federal government regulate fossil fuel emissions under the Clean Air Act (PL 101-549) and puts new pressure on Congress to enact climate change legislation.
"The message to Congress is crystal clear: Get moving," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the point-man in efforts to write a bipartisan Senate global warming bill.
The White House has held the threat of the endangerment finding over the heads of Congress for months, and it rolled out the announcement on the first day of international climate change negotiations in Copenhagen.
With climate change legislation stalled behind the health care debate, the announcement gives President Obama something tangible to demonstrate that the U.S. is serious about following through on promises to cut carbon emissions. That could have a profound impact on the outcome of the climate negotiations -- which, in turn, could give momentum to prospects for a climate bill in the Senate.
"This is the price of admission," said Kevin Book, managing director of research at ClearView Energy Partners, a strategy and consulting firm. "We can't credibly negotiate with other countries unless we do something. Today, legally speaking, we will have done something. The final endangerment finding means that we will have committed irrevocably to action. And the first and most likely response is that Congress will pass a new law. This is a checkmate for Congress."
EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson called the findings "long overdue" and said they "cement 2009's place in history as the year when the United States Government began addressing the challenge of greenhouse-gas pollution and seizing the opportunity of clean-energy reform."
But many lawmakers, business organizations and interest groups see the blunt instrument of EPA regulation as a nightmare scenario. They would prefer Congress to write legislation that they could play a significant role in shaping.
"It means we can't ignore the issue," said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill. "If we don't come up with a reasonable way to reduce [carbon dioxide] and greenhouse gas emissions working with business and labor and interest groups, then we may face decisions by the EPA which are very tough on a lot of people."
The EPA said its finding reflects a thorough examination of the scientific evidence and careful consideration of public comment. The agency found that emissions of heat-trapping gases such as carbon dioxide can lead to longer and more intense heat waves that threaten the health of the sick, poor and elderly and can increase ground-level ozone pollution linked to such respiratory diseases as asthma.
The findings respond to a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that greenhouse gases fall within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants. The EPA action does not impose any new emission reduction requirements, but it allows the agency to proceed with rulemaking.
"I think this is going to provide incentive for people to engage on climate change," said Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D. "The prospect of EPA regulation is a significant incentive to engage, no doubt about it."
Skeptics Question the Science Republicans who have been fighting a climate bill acknowledged as much, and slammed the move.
"The elected Congress, not an administrative agency, should write the laws governing the economy's response to climate change," said Tennessee Republican Lamar Alexander, who chairs the Senate Republican Conference. "The costs of compliance with the EPA's unilateral announcement today could run into hundreds of billions of dollars a year - costs borne by average Americans through huge increases in their electric bills and at the gas pump. This is an especially bad idea when unemployment is at 10 percent."
Jackson stressed that congressional action remains the administration's first choice. While Monday's decision authorizes the EPA to set a timetable to begin curbing emissions, Jackson has not laid out a schedule and said she still hoped Congress would act first.
In attacking the EPA action, Republicans cited the recent controversy over a series of hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, in which climate scientists refer to using a "trick" to "hide the decline" in preparing some climate change data.
"Today's EPA action mimics the e-mails in one respect: It demonstrates that public relations priorities rather than straightforward science are driving U.S. policy-making on global warming," said Rep. Joe L. Barton of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee and a leading skeptic of global warming science.
"There is nothing in the hacked e-mails that undermines the science on which the decision was made," Jackson said. "This issue has not raised new questions that are not already addressed in this finding."
Jackson said skeptics are using the e-mails to sow doubts about the scientific basis for concern about global warming.
"It's no wonder that many people are confused," she said. "But raising doubts -- even in the face of overwhelming evidence -- is a tactic that has been used by defenders of the status quo for years . . . It's time that we let the science speak for itself. In making this finding, we relied on decades of sound, peer-reviewed, extensively evaluated scientific data."
Copenhagen Talks Impacted Meanwhile, Jackson said that White House hopes that timing of the announcement, on the first day of the Copenhagen talks, will send a clear signal to the rest of the world and strengthen the U.S. negotiating position.
"It also means that we arrive at the climate talks in Copenhagen with a clear demonstration of our commitment to facing this global challenge," Jackson said. "We hope that today's announcement serves as another incentive for far-reaching accords in our meetings this week."
At the center of the Copenhagen negotiations is the question of whether major carbon emitting countries will commit to binding targets for carbon emissions cuts.
While President Obama has said he intends to commit the U.S. to slashing carbon emissions in the range of 17 percent by 2020, international negotiators are wary of the promise, questioning whether Congress will follow through on enacting legislation.
The House passed legislation in June (HR 2454) mandating a 17 percent emission reduction cut by 2020, but moderate Senate Democrats from coal, farm and rust belt states have raised myriad concerns about the impact on their home-state industries.
A chief concern from many moderate Democrats has been the question of whether to commit the U.S. to cutting carbon emissions without similar commitments from the world's other major emitters, India and China.
In Copenhagen, the EPA announcement could signal to India and China that the U.S. will make the carbon cuts even without cooperation from an unwilling Congress. That could help ensure commitments from those countries - which could in turn go further to bring along the support from those critical swing vote moderates.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20091207/pl_cq_politics/politics3260419_6