Bush Weighs in on Greenhouse Gas Reductions, Critics Rip Effort

Posted on April 16, 2008 by Dennis Pfaff

President Bush Wednesday set a goal of halting the increase in the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2025, a significantly less ambitious objective than that established by some of the states, including California.

But in a speech in the White House Rose Garden, Bush also opened the door to a binding international agreement on cutting emissions.

In his speech, the president warned against raising taxes or imposing mandates or demands for “sudden and drastic emissions cuts that have no chance of being realized and every chance of hurting our economy.” He also argued in favor of promoting “emission-free nuclear power” and encouraging investments needed to produce electricity from coal without releasing carbon (see full text of statement here; see White House fact sheet here).

Bush called the new goal to stop the growth of U.S. greenhouse emissions by 2025 “a major step forward in America’s efforts to address climate change.” Yet he outlined few specific steps, beyond some already taken such as requiring better automobile fuel efficiency, to achieve the target. Among his goals, he said, was to create a new incentive to make the development, commercialization and use of new lower-emission technologies more competitive.

By contrast, California’s anti-global warming law, AB 32, requires the state to roll back its emissions of heat-trapping gases to 1990 levels by 2020, an estimated 25 percent reduction. Even further cuts would be required later under an order issued by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (see text here). Additionally, all three major presidential candidates have endorsed emissions limits and trading programs.

Bush also expressed concern over efforts to employ existing laws, such as the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Air Act to tackle the problem. Environmentalists have been trying to prod action with the species law (see Climate Law Update stories here and here). California, and by extension other states, want to use the air law to control climate-changing emissions from cars but they have been thwarted by Bush administration officials (see Climate Law Update story here). In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court has required the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to consider whether to regulate greenhouse gases as air pollutants under the law (see Climate Law Update stories here and here).

Bush, in his speech Wednesday, predicted the application of those laws could have widespread intrusive effects, forcing the federal government to "act like a local planning and zoning board, [having] crippling effects on our entire economy." 

The president, who has opposed such international treaties as the Kyoto Protocol, said that "all major economies" must take action to make a dent in the problem. He then suggested the United States would be willing to enter a new pact:

"Like many other countries, America's national plan will be a comprehensive blend of market incentives and regulations to reduce emissions by encouraging clean and efficient energy technologies. We're willing to include this plan in a binding international agreement, so long as our fellow major economies are prepared to include their plans in such an agreement."   

Congressional critics of Bush also quickly ripped the president’s stance. U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, the California Democrat who chairs the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, issued a statement (see text here) saying Bush’s “plan to have America stand by while greenhouse gases reach dangerous levels and threaten America and the world is worse than doing nothing – it is the height of irresponsibility.” Although greenhouse gas emissions have shown some decreases lately in the United States (see Climate Law Update story here), officials estimate they have grown nearly 15 percent since 1990 (access latest inventory here).   

Others, meanwhile, reacted more cautiously. Sens. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., co-sponsor of legislation that would limit greenhouse emissions and set up a trading program to help control them, said he shared the president’s preference for a market-based approach over the imposition of new carbon taxes. Lieberman said he did not believe Bush’s statement would hamper the chances of the bill he and Sen. John Warner, R-Va., are sponsoring. The measure is expected to come before the Senate in June (see text of legislation here), .

Warner, in the same statement, said the president’s support for “measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. is welcome news as the Senate prepares to consider climate change legislation this summer.” Warner also praised Bush's call for an international approach to the issue (see full text of statement here).

(Photo credit: White House)
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

EPA Avoids 'Rush to Judgment' on Greenhouse Gases, Sparks Court Threats

Posted on March 27, 2008 by Dennis Pfaff

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen L. Johnson, declaring that he wanted to avoid “rushing to judgment on a single issue,” informed lawmakers Thursday he'll be taking additional time to study the critical issue of whether to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Outraged critics, including Sen. Barbara Boxer (pictured), said the move makes it virtually certain no action will be taken during the remainder of President Bush's term in office.

Johnson, in a letter to key members of Congress (see text), outlined an administrative procedure that would ramp up this spring and would then be followed by a period in which the public could comment. It was not immediately known how long the process would take to produce a final decision, although skeptics predicted it would push any ultimate determination into the next administration. Environmental groups vowed to return to court to force the agency to act.

The announcement, coming nearly a year after the U.S. Supreme Court in its landmark Massachusetts v. EPA ruling held the agency had the authority to regulate the gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act, immediately provoked the condemnation of environmentalists and others. The Supreme Court ruling did not require the agency to issue regulations but it told the EPA it had to consider such issues as whether public health was endangered. While the ruling came in the context of regulating emissions from motor vehicles but many now want the EPA to wield broad control over substances believed to contribute to climate change, from whatever source.

Johnson, in the letter to Boxer, the California Democrat who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and Sen. James Inhofe, the committee’s ranking Republican from Oklahoma, seemed to acknowledge a decision to regulate could have wide ramifications:

"Such an approach makes sense because, as the Act is structured, any regulation of
greenhouse gases - even from mobile sources - could automatically result in other regulations applying to stationary sources and extend to small sources including many not previously regulated under the Clean Air Act. Consequently, any individual decision on whether and how sources and gases should be regulated may dictate future regulatory actions to address climate change. My approach will allow EPA to solicit public input and relevant information regarding these interconnections and their possible regulatory requirements.

"This approach gives the appropriate care and attention this complex issue demands. It
will also allow us to use existing work. Rather than rushing to judgment on a single issue, this approach allows us to examine all the potential effects of a decision with the benefit of the public's insight. In short, this process will best serve the American public."

But Johnson in his letter also noted that his agency is facing legal action and petitions on the issue. Among them, although he did not mention it specifically, is an attempt by a number of organizations to impose greenhouse gas controls on a proposed Utah power plant (see Climate Law Update story).

The latest move follows by weeks Johnson’s issuance of his formal reasons for turning down California’s attempt to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles, in a move that also has raised hackles on Capitol Hill and among environmentalists (see Climate Law Update story).  

In his letter Thursday, Johnson wrote that he would direct the EPA staff to prepare an "Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" to "discuss and solicit public input on these interrelated matters." That document would be issued later this spring and then would be followed by a public comment period. "The agency will then consider how to best respond to the Supreme Court decision and its implications under the Clean Air Act," he wrote.

Officials in Johnson's office did not return a call from Climate Law Update seeking comment on the latest move. 

Boxer, an outspoken environmental advocate, issued a statement accusing Johnson of "foot-dragging." She said the letter "makes it clear that EPA doesn't intend to take any real action to combat global warming before President Bush leaves office."

Aides to Inhofe, who has called global warming “the most media-hyped issue of all time,” could not be reached for comment Thursday.

Environmental groups and California government officials ripped Johnson. Said David Bookbinder, chief climate counsel for the Sierra Club, in a written statement (see press release):

"One year after the Supreme Court recognized the grave problem of climate change and ordered EPA to take the formal steps necessary to begin controlling global warming-causing pollution, Administrator Johnson has decided that what he needs to do is think about it some more.  After a year of navel-gazing, Administrator Johnson says that later this spring he will ask the public to provide EPA with (a) the "best available science" on global warming, and (b) their views on the "interconnections" between various parts of the Clean Air Act that "may" be affected by any decision to begin limiting GHG emissions.  Then, after months of public comments and some unspecified period thinking about them -- and only then -- will EPA "consider how best to respond to the Supreme Court decision and its implications under the Clean Air Act."

The Natural Resources Defense Council also weighed in (see press release), with a statement by David Hawkins, the environmental group’s climate center director. Hawkins said the announcement “follows an industry script designed to delay any real action to reduce global warming pollution for as long as possible and certainly until the next administration.”

Both Hawkins and Bookbinder threatened new court action. Hawkins said the NRDC would, as part of a coalition of groups, “return to federal court next week to enforce compliance with the Supreme Court’s decision.”

The negative reaction was not limited to environmental groups. Stanley Young, a spokesman for the California Air Resources Board, told Climate Law Update the "EPA's inaction heaps delay upon delay." However, he said the air board would continue moving forward with implementing California's own greenhouse gas reduction law, AB 32.

Kenneth Alex, a top lawyer for California Attorney General Jerry Brown, in an interview with Climate Law Update, said the latest move was part of “an ongoing abdication of responsibility and it’s nothing new.” Brown has been aggressively moving to require local governments and private entities in California to take steps to curb greenhouse emissions.

“In essence,” said Alex, a supervising deputy attorney general, “they’ve opened a public comment period on nothing.”

(Photo: Sen. Barbara Boxer via official Web site)
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,