EPA clears a path for emission limitsAn 'endangerment finding' is a key step in a legal process that would offer Obama an alternative to climate legislation if Congress stalls.
By Christi Parsons and Jim Tankersley
December 8, 2009
Reporting from Washington and Copenhagen
The Obama administration on Monday declared that greenhouse gases produced by vehicles, power plants and factories were a danger to public health, clearing the way for broad federal limits on climate-warming emissions.The announcement by the Environmental Protection Agency is a key step in a legal process that would allow the agency to act, without Congress, to develop
tough rules to control emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases that scientists blame for global warming."The vast body of evidence not only remains unassailable, it's grown stronger, and it points to one conclusion," said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson in announcing the decision. "Greenhouse gases from human activity are increasing at unprecedented rates, and are adversely affecting our environment and threatening our health."
The EPA’s “endangerment finding” came on the opening day of an international two-week climate conference in Copenhagen aimed at hammering out an accord on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.Though the White House said the timing of the EPA announcement and the conference was a coincidence, the finding still sent a clear message of the administration's resolve to push ahead with emission controls -- with or without Congress.In making the announcement Monday, Jackson said the administration "will not ignore science or the law any longer.""Look at the droughts, the flooding, the changes in diseases, the changes in migratory habits, the changes in our water cycle and climate that we now find affect human health and welfare," she said.
The finding might be the latest step in the Obama administration's carrot-and-stick strategy for keeping pressure on Congress to approvea comprehensive climate bill, while giving the president an alternative approach if the legislation bogs down.The White House has said repeatedly that it would prefer to deal with the complex and emotion-charged issue through congressional action.
The House passed a climate bill in June that proposed a 17% reduction in carbon emissions from 2005 levels. A similar bill is pending in the Senate.Climate legislation would affect a broad swath of the American economy; it could raise consumer prices and manufacturing costs in at least some areas and faces formidable opposition from business groups, Republican lawmakers and some Democrats.
The challenge of passing a bill is all the greater at a time when Congress is preoccupied with the even more controversial healthcare overhaul and voters seem more concerned about jobs and the economy than about long-term climate change. As a result, President Obama, who promised action on global warming during his campaign, has moved forward on the alternative track: direct administrative action by the EPA.
Coming on the eve of Obama's trip to the climate summit in Copenhagen, the endangerment announcement gives the White House something positive to point to in the absence of congressional action.
But even with the EPA finding, the White House has not committed to pushing ahead with the regulatory process if climate legislation stalls.
Criticism of the EPA announcement came quickly.
"The elected Congress, not an administrative agency, should write the laws governing the economy's response to climate change," Sen. Lamar Alexander
(R-Tenn.) said.
Alexander, chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, added: "The costs of compliance with the EPA's unilateral announcement today could run into hundreds of billions of dollars a year -- costs borne by average Americans through huge increases in their electric bills and at the gas pump. This is an especially bad idea when unemployment is at 10%."
Jeff Holmstead, EPA air administrator in the George W. Bush administration, expressed concern that new paperwork requirements would bring new construction "to a standstill."
"If the agency's eventual regulatory approach is mishandled, it could result in profound consequences for the economy with little environmental benefit to show for it," Holmstead said.
Climate legislation is also strongly opposed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, though its position has drawn criticism from some of its prominent members, with some major companies withdrawing from the organization in protest.The endangerment finding was part of a process prompted by a Supreme Court decision in 2007 that ordered the EPA to review scientific evidence for regulating climate-altering gases under the Clean Air Act.
The Bush administration largely ignored the decision. Obama, however, had promised before taking office that he would address the issue quickly.The long-anticipated announcement upped the ante for the administration and the Democrats in their push to pass a climate bill.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, however, cautioned not to read too much into the timing of the announcement."This is part of a process that started more than two years ago with a Supreme Court finding that the EPA should regulate greenhouse gases that threaten the
public health because it's a pollutant," he said.
Jackson said Monday that the endangerment finding was not intended to pressure Congress and that legislation was still the best way to address climate pollution and move toward clean energy.
In economic terms, complying with new emission regulations would be much more expensive than using the "cap-and-trade" provision in the climate bill, some analysts say.
The cap-and-trade system, under which companies could buy and trade permits to cover the greenhouse gases they release, is designed to minimize costs to emitters. For example, major emitters could use permits to spread the cost of reducing pollutants over time.If the EPA imposes rules, companies would probably have to move more quickly to make costly changes in their operations.
Even so, Jackson said, "I do not believe this is an 'either-or' proposition. I actually see this as a 'both-and.' I believe the Clean Air Act can complement legislative efforts."
She said the administration still planned to work with Congress to get a climate change bill to the president's desk.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/bd4379a92ceceeac8525735900400c27/08d11a451131bca585257685005bf252!OpenDocument
EPA: Greenhouse Gases Threaten Public Health and the Environment
Science overwhelmingly shows greenhouse gas concentrations at unprecedented levels due to human activity
WASHINGTON – After a thorough examination of the scientific evidence and careful consideration of public comments, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) announced today that greenhouse gases (GHGs) threaten the public health and welfare of the American people. EPA also finds that GHG emissions from
on-road vehicles contribute to that threat.
GHGs are the primary driver of climate change, which can lead to hotter, longer heat waves that threaten the health of the sick, poor or elderly; increases
in ground-level ozone pollution linked to asthma and other respiratory illnesses; as well as other threats to the health and welfare of Americans.
“These long-overdue findings cement 2009’s place in history as the year when the United States Government began addressing the challenge of greenhouse-gas
pollution and seizing the opportunity of clean-energy reform,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “Business leaders, security experts, government
officials, concerned citizens and the United States Supreme Court have called for enduring, pragmatic solutions to reduce the greenhouse gas pollution that
is causing climate change. This continues our work towards clean energy reform that will cut GHGs and reduce the dependence on foreign oil that threatens our
national security and our economy.”
EPA’s final findings respond to the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision that GHGs fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants. The findings do not
in and of themselves impose any emission reduction requirements but rather allow EPA to finalize the GHG standards proposed earlier this year for new
light-duty vehicles as part of the joint rulemaking with the Department of Transportation.
On-road vehicles contribute more than 23 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions. EPA’s proposed GHG standards for light-duty vehicles, a subset of on-road
vehicles, would reduce GHG emissions by nearly 950 million metric tons and conserve 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of model year 2012-2016
vehicles.
EPA’s endangerment finding covers emissions of six key greenhouse gases – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and
sulfur hexafluoride – that have been the subject of scrutiny and intense analysis for decades by scientists in the United States and around the world.
Scientific consensus shows that as a result of human activities, GHG concentrations in the atmosphere are at record high levels and data shows that the Earth
has been warming over the past 100 years, with the steepest increase in warming in recent decades. The evidence of human-induced climate change goes beyond
observed increases in average surface temperatures; it includes melting ice in the Arctic, melting glaciers around the world, increasing ocean temperatures,
rising sea levels, acidification of the oceans due to excess carbon dioxide, changing precipitation patterns, and changing patterns of ecosystems and
wildlife.
President Obama and Administrator Jackson have publicly stated that they support a legislative solution to the problem of climate change and Congress’
efforts to pass comprehensive climate legislation. However, climate change is threatening public health and welfare, and it is critical that EPA fulfill its
obligation to respond to the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that determined that greenhouse gases fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants.
EPA issued the proposed findings in April 2009 and held a 60-day public comment period. The agency received more than 380,000 comments, which were carefully
reviewed and considered during the development of the final findings.
Information on EPA’s findings: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html
