Developing a Comprehensive Approach to Climate Change Policy in the United States that Fully Integrates Levels of Government and Economic Sectors
By Thomas D. Peterson, Robert B. McKinstry, Jr. , and John C. Dernbach
INTRODUCTION
Over the past several years, the issue of global warming has become a national political priority and will likely remain one of the United States' and the world's most pressing and unresolved policy issues. Many factors underlie the current call for action, including the advancement of world science assessments, expansion of public awareness and media coverage, increased severe weather events, noticeable global warming trends, continued recalcitrance on the part of the U.S. federal government, international pressure related to treaty obligations, widespread business success in reducing emissions, business demands for a coherent long range national strategy, mounting national energy policy problems, a tidal wave of state and local leadership actions, and court actions. With the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency the release of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the announcement of new state greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation plans, and the success of Al Gore's documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, many believe that a mandatory and comprehensive federal response to climate change is inevitable.
The Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA makes possible a national program to address climate change under the Clean Air Act (CAA). Reversing the Administration's denial of a petition to regulate mobile source emissions under section 202 of the CAA, the Court held that (1) the Act gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide and other GHGs as “pollutants,” and (2) the EPA improperly failed to articulate reasons for its refusal to regulate GHG emissions pursuant to the statutory requirement that the EPA Administrator regulate emissions that “in his judgment, cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” The Court remanded the matter to the EPA to make a finding consistent with the statutory standard.
Given the state of the science and the relevant statutory standard, the EPA cannot reasonably refuse to regulate mobile source emissions of GHGs. Because sections 108 and 111 of the CAA contain language identical to that construed by the Court in Massachusetts v. EPA, the establishment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), state implementation plans (SIPs), new source performance standards, and the full panoply of regulatory mechanisms of the CAA should be applied to GHGs.
Even before the Supreme Court's ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, the recent Congressional shift in power produced a flurry of bills coalescing around the need for strong national goals and mandatory GHG emissions reductions. While many of the new bills before Congress move toward stronger emissions reduction goals and potentially broader policy approaches, they remain silent on the specific pathways necessary to achieve these climate stabilization goals. For instance, the bills do not describe how to:
• Vertically integrate rapidly expanding state and local climate change programs, as well as international programs, into a comprehensive national program;
• Horizontally integrate a full range of effective measures and programs across economic sectors;
• Address the Bush administration's recalcitrance toward action; and
• Implement a full range of near-term actions without undue delay.
Consequently, federal legislation or rulemaking must significantly clarify and expand the approach to governance if the United States is to make a clear and effective commitment to climate stabilization. If the United States adopts partial or delayed approaches that do not resolve these important governance issues but leave them to be worked out in the courts or through rulemaking, many low cost opportunities for action will evaporate, environmental risks will grow, additional action will be needed, and international pressure will both intensify and spill over into other arenas.
Over the past several years, the issue of global warming has become a national political priority and will likely remain one of the United States' and the world's most pressing and unresolved policy issues. Many factors underlie the current call for action, including the advancement of world science assessments, expansion of public awareness and media coverage, increased severe weather events, noticeable global warming trends, continued recalcitrance on the part of the U.S. federal government, international pressure related to treaty obligations, widespread business success in reducing emissions, business demands for a coherent long range national strategy, mounting national energy policy problems, a tidal wave of state and local leadership actions, and court actions. With the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency the release of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the announcement of new state greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation plans, and the success of Al Gore's documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, many believe that a mandatory and comprehensive federal response to climate change is inevitable.
The Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA makes possible a national program to address climate change under the Clean Air Act (CAA). Reversing the Administration's denial of a petition to regulate mobile source emissions under section 202 of the CAA, the Court held that (1) the Act gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide and other GHGs as “pollutants,” and (2) the EPA improperly failed to articulate reasons for its refusal to regulate GHG emissions pursuant to the statutory requirement that the EPA Administrator regulate emissions that “in his judgment, cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” The Court remanded the matter to the EPA to make a finding consistent with the statutory standard.
Given the state of the science and the relevant statutory standard, the EPA cannot reasonably refuse to regulate mobile source emissions of GHGs. Because sections 108 and 111 of the CAA contain language identical to that construed by the Court in Massachusetts v. EPA, the establishment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), state implementation plans (SIPs), new source performance standards, and the full panoply of regulatory mechanisms of the CAA should be applied to GHGs.
Even before the Supreme Court's ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, the recent Congressional shift in power produced a flurry of bills coalescing around the need for strong national goals and mandatory GHG emissions reductions. While many of the new bills before Congress move toward stronger emissions reduction goals and potentially broader policy approaches, they remain silent on the specific pathways necessary to achieve these climate stabilization goals. For instance, the bills do not describe how to:
• Vertically integrate rapidly expanding state and local climate change programs, as well as international programs, into a comprehensive national program;
• Horizontally integrate a full range of effective measures and programs across economic sectors;
• Address the Bush administration's recalcitrance toward action; and
• Implement a full range of near-term actions without undue delay.
Consequently, federal legislation or rulemaking must significantly clarify and expand the approach to governance if the United States is to make a clear and effective commitment to climate stabilization. If the United States adopts partial or delayed approaches that do not resolve these important governance issues but leave them to be worked out in the courts or through rulemaking, many low cost opportunities for action will evaporate, environmental risks will grow, additional action will be needed, and international pressure will both intensify and spill over into other arenas.
