I wrote last month about The Reaction to EPA’s proposed regulations on greenhouse gases. The virus of fear is spreading. People who should know better, in my opinion, namely eight Democratic Senators from coal, oil and industrial states, wrote to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson warning her, for all intents and purposes, to back off. Coal-State Democrats Oppose Global-Warming Rules was the headline from ABC News. Led by West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller, this group wants the EPA to “suspend” the regulations and wait for Congress to pass legislation. (As I noted last month, Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, has introduced legislation to block the EPA. She’s been joined by 40 cosponsors, almost all Republicans, except for three Democrats, all very conservative. Murkowski’s effort is being aided and abetted in the House by two powerful Democratic members, Collin Peterson and Ike Skelton, who head the Agriculture and Armed Services committees.)
Rockefeller’s press release says his state and others “…can ill-afford ad hoc regulations.” The letter they sent to Jackson asserts that “Ill-timed or imprudent regulations of GHGs may squander critical opportunities for our nation, impeding the investment necessary to create jobs and position our nation to develop and produce its own clean energy.” Yes, Senators, and that’s precisely why EPA is acting: because the Senate has been deadlocked owing to steadfast blatant political obstructionism by the Republican Caucus – in all things – and fear and loathing by industrial state Democrats, and we are blowing this amazing opportunity to move toward a sustainable, clean tech economy.
Lisa Jackson’s thoughtful and full response to Rockefeller et al concludes by saying that “…a vote to vitiate the greenhouse-gas endangerment finding … would be viewed by many as a vote to move the United States to a position behind that of China on the issue of climate change, and more in line with the position of Saudi Arabia.” Ouch!
NRDC’s Climate Policy Director, Dave Doniger, further underlined the reasonableness of EPA’s position and Jackson’s response in this statement, and in this quote in a NY Times article on the matter: “These answers from Lisa Jackson hopefully will reassure the authors of the letter that the E.P.A. is proceeding in a very measured way and doing what is achievable and affordable to curb global warming pollution and focusing as they should on the biggest sources like power plants and not small businesses.”
It is unlikely that legislation barring the EPA on this could actually pass. If it did move out of the two houses of Congress, the President would veto it. Yet, it is still beyond my conception, at this late date, that right-thinking people could actually be blind to the opportunities inherent in instituting greenhouse gas regulations and/or passing cap-and-trade. Most of the business community gets it. The American Public Health Association and 11 other leading health organizations get it. Why not the Senate?
Meanwhile, court challenges to the EPA are starting to pop up. Texas To Challenge U.S. Greenhouse Gas Rules reports Reuters. Governor Rick Perry is quoted: “The EPA’s misguided plan paints a big target on the backs of Texas agriculture and energy producers and the hundreds of thousands of Texans they employ.” Other lawsuits are pending. In fact, Greenwire reports here that 16 suits have been filed and here that a number of states and New York City have asked to intervene on behalf of EPA.
The Supreme Court mandated that EPA come to a decision on endangerment in a landmark 2007 ruling on Massachusetts et al v. EPA et al. I have little doubt that EPA’s finding that GHGs endanger public health can be successfully challenged. The problem, of course, lies in the obstruction and delay that court cases can bring. But then that’s exactly what the folks filing these suits have in mind.
Finally, you should be aware that the US Securities and Exchange Commission, Wall Street’s principal federal regulator, issued a “guidance” last month on Disclosure Related to Business or Legal Developments Regarding Climate Change. The SEC scrupulously avoided “…opining on whether the world’s climate is changing, at what pace it might be changing, or due to what causes.” They did suggest to companies that there were areas where “climate change may trigger disclosure requirements,” namely, in the impact of legislation and regulation, impact of international accords, indirect consequences of regulation or business trends, and by the physical impacts of climate change. Those cover a lot of territory. Clearly, the trend has been for companies to move toward disclosing the potential or the actual impacts. Organizations such as the Carbon Disclosure Project have been driving this movement.
Another of these groups, the Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR), was happy about the SEC guidance. Their release quotes Mindy Lubber, president of Ceres and director of the Investor Network on Climate Risk: “Today’s vote is a clarion call about the vast risks and opportunities climate change poses for US companies and the urgency for integrating them into investment decision making. The business risks of climate change cannot be ignored. With this guidance investors can make more sound decisions based on better information – and businesses will have a level-playing field with clear standards and expectations for disclosure.”
The “NY Times” editorial board was delighted too. But their editorial also notes there “…were predictable howls…” from folks like “Representative Joe Barton, among the most reliable of the oil, gas and coal industries’ many friends in Congress…” Barton’s colleague, Senator John Barrasso, wants to block the SEC from doing its job, Bloomberg News reports here. Barrasso’s release calls the SEC guidance “absurd.” My grandmother would’ve said “That’s the pot calling the kettle black.” The SEC is doing its job, Senator, just as the EPA is doing.
