Responses to, Analyses of EPA Proposal

By July 11, 2008Global Warming

Auto Alliance, “Automakers Respond to EPA Greenhouse Gas ANPRM“: “EPA’s analysis is complex and requires close study before the Alliance can assess how this proposal would affect the industry. However, we share concerns that the Clean Air Act, which underwent its last major amendment 18 years ago, does not include all of the tools and criteria needed to address the global issue of climate change, including requirements to balance the economic effects and impacts on U.S. manufacturing jobs along with the environmental considerations. The Alliance notes that the leading climate change proposals in Congress propose using a different framework for reducing carbon dioxide emissions.”

 More as they come in …

(3:15 p.m.) AP story, “Administration rejects regulating greenhouse gases“:

 “If our nation is truly about serious regulating greenhouse gases, the Clean Air Act is the wrong tool for the job,” EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson told reporters. “It is really at the feet of Congress.”

This contrasts sharply with the tone of statements President Bush made at the just-concluded G-8 summit of leading industrialized nations in Toyako, Japan. The United States at that meeting joined other summit partners in embracing a policy declaration to seek a 50 percent reduction in global greenhouse gases by 2050.

Comment: No it doesn’t. Is the AP reporter unable to distinguish between a policy response to global warming versus a regulatory response? Administrator Johnson is talking specifically about the Clean Air Act as the vehicle for addressing greenhouse gas emissions. Criminy.

(3:50 p.m.) WSJ Blog, Environmental Capital, “EPA: Let Congress Regulate Emissions—We Can’t“:

The EPA boss [Stephen Johnson] said Congress must draft comprehensive legislation that avoids the regulatory and litigation pitfalls of trying to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions on a case-by-case basis from within the EPA. Using the Clean Air Act, Mr. Johnson said, “would be like walking across the country rather than taking a fast and secure supersonic jet.” …[snip]

Mr. Johnson might have a point about the perils of litigation and the piecemeal approach to regulating emissions. Friday, a federal court struck down a signature piece of the Bush administration’s environmental policy—a requirement for power plants to cut emissions of pollutants like sulfur-dioxide and nitrogen-dioxide. Power companies had sued to overturn the law.

The opinion by the  U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is here.

(4:40 p.m.) Heritage Foundation, WebMemo #1988,  “A Glorious Mess”: EPA Notice Would Have Dramatic Impact on U.S. Military

(4:46 p.m.) Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, “Inhofe Says EPA’s Climate Announcement is a ‘Nightmare Scenario’

“Obviously the concept of regulating carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act is flawed and the Act must be amended by Congress,” Senator Inhofe said. “Today’s notice should concern all lawmakers, no one should want the EPA to exercise the kind of power and authority that the career staff at EPA contemplates.

“Just last month the United States Senate considered and soundly rejected the climate ‘cap-and-trade’ proposal known as the Lieberman-Warner Bill. It is ironic that the EPA has proposed an even more economically destructive scheme this close to that Bill’s demise. If Congress does not act, then the resulting regulations could be the largest regulatory intrusion into Americans personal lives, a nightmare scenario. Big brother is alive and well in the career ranks at the EPA.”


Leave a Reply