EPA Chief Says US Congress Should Legislate to Limit Carbon Emissions

Building the Green Economy, Crisis Policy Forum, Quipu Economic Forum, Zero-combustion paradigm ::

12 July 2008 :: by J.E. Robertson

The chairman of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Stephen Johnson, says the Clean Air Act is “ill-suited” to fighting the greenhouse effect, and that Congress should pass laws mandating the regulation of carbon emissions, with global warming in mind. The move may lead to a more comprehensive regulatory regime, but as the Guardian newspaper notes: “Last year’s Massachusetts v. EPA Supreme Court ruling had found that greenhouse gases can be regulated under the U.S. Clean Air Act. The decision pressured the EPA to reconsider its refusal to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from new cars and trucks.”

Johnson’s call for Congressional action likely means there will be no effective measures to regulate carbon emissions until the next president is sworn in. Congress has scheduled only 35 days of business between now and the November elections, and none between the election and the initiation of the new Congress in January. Some critics have said it is the latest in a series of moves by the Bush administration to stall efforts to regulate carbon emissions, despite the landmark Supreme Court ruling ordering the EPA to do so via the Clean Air Act.

When the EPA staff began drafting proposed emissions regulations in line with the provisions of the Clean Air Act, the White House quipped that the type of “onerous command-and-control regulation contemplated in the EPA staff draft would impose crippling costs on the economy in the form of a massive hidden tax, without even ensuring that the intended overall emissions reductions occur.”

EPA chief Johnson has said he believes the EPA cannot easily craft effective regulations through the provisions of the Clean Air Act, and that doing so would be like walking across the entire country on foot, while an act of Congress would be like traveling by supersonic jet, in speeding the reform of the nation’s regulatory policy.

The EPA has asked for a 120-day period of public comment on a range of issues related to potential regulatory measures. The comment period follows a series of interrupted draft proposals and internal debate on the issue, prompted by the Supreme Court ruling. Johnson expressed concern that regulating carbon emissions “under any portion of the Clean Air Act could result in an unprecedented expansion of EPA’s authority that could have a profound effect on virtually every sector of the economy and every household”.

Senators from both parties have been harshly critical of the administration’s response to the issue. Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) said “The deliberate efforts to delay adherence to the Supreme Court’s decision is reckless and irresponsible”, while Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) has quipped that “After more than seven years, this administration is still not willing to make the hard choices to confront global warming”. Carper chairs the Senate Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety.

There has been stiff resistance from automakers to the notion of mandating higher standards of efficiency or steep reductions in carbon emissions, and they have said there needs to be a comprehensive framework for crafting real solutions on a global scale. Economic side-effects would need to be softened by legislation, and trade imbalances might need to be shored up by reaching agreement on global standards, via some binding treaty, presently not considered near.

In a 640 to 30 vote, the European Parliament yesterday passed legislation to mandate that airlines operating in Europe reduce the emissions on any flights using European airspace by 3% starting in 2012 and 5% from 2013 on. European air traffic is expected to double by 2020, and the EU legislators envision auctioning emissions credits for the airlines in order to help bring overall carbon emissions down through a “cap and trade” system.