Jolting Congress into action on greenhouse gases
Friday, April 17, 2009
AS SOON as next week, the Environmental Protection Agency could
follow through on an order from the Supreme Court to either declare
carbon dioxide a pollutant or to say why it isn't. That decision
could usefully signal to the world that the United States is serious
about regulating greenhouse gas emissions. But it should also send a
shiver down Congress's collective spine. Because the regulation of
carbon will have a profound effect on the American economy, this
vital task should be the responsibility of Congress, not of unelected
officials at the EPA.
The EPA does have the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate
air pollutants that have "effects on [public] welfare," "on . . .
weather, . . . and climate, . . . as well as effects on . . .
personal comfort and well-being." Emitted greenhouse gases,
particularly carbon dioxide, will have such effects. The Supreme
Court's 2007 ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA affirmed this when the
majority concluded that the EPA had the authority to control
emissions from motor vehicle tailpipes and ordered the agency to
issue an endangerment finding. Then-EPA Administrator Stephen L.
Johnson was close to doing so on the basis of public welfare, but he
opted for another public comment period after intense pressure from
the Bush administration.
The probable and impending endangerment finding by current EPA
Administrator Lisa P. Jackson would fulfill the court's mandate and
then require Ms. Jackson to devise regulations for the transportation
sector. But having declared greenhouse gases a pollutant, the agency
would have to set about the long process of regulating such gases
from all other sources as well. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce
expresses concern about the impact of such regulation on the
construction industry, because residential and commercial buildings
are larger sources of global-warming pollution than are motor
vehicles. Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), then-chairman of the House
Energy and Commerce Committee, predicted last year that seeking to
control climate change with such piecemeal regulation would lead to a
"glorious mess."
The best way to stop this from happening is for Congress to adopt a
more rational scheme, by putting a price on carbon with a tax
(ideally) or a cap-and-trade market. Next week, Rep. Henry A. Waxman
(D-Calif.), the current chairman of the Energy and Commerce
Committee, will hold hearings on the discussion draft of
comprehensive energy legislation that he and Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-
Mass.), chairman of the energy and environment subcommittee, released
before the Easter recess. While the proposal details many ambitious
programs for renewable energy and efficiency, it is noticeably mute
on the contours of a cap-and-trade system. Specifically, it doesn't
say whether the pollution allowances would be auctioned or a portion
given away to industry to ease the transition to a carbon-constrained
economy. This is an important question, one whose answer will have a
profound impact on the way Americans live -- one of many basic issues
that should be settled by their representatives in Congress.
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.