Climate change already causing (political) storms
Posted October 1, 2009 at 10:07 am 
Filed in: Yesterday was a big day in the political climate change world. First, the Kerry-Boxer legislation was unveiled — what ever happened to ladies first? — to much environmental group cheering and Chamber of Commerce et al jeering. Styled as “stronger” than the House-passed Waxman-Markey bill, the 801 page behemoth was quickly criticized by no less than the Washington Post for “missing . . . . a cap-and-trade system.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/30/AR2009093004242.html
That’s more than a bit unfair, since the two chairpersons merely left some details of the emissions allowance allocation system open for consideration by the Senate Finance Committee, thus allowing the bill to be referred to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, the one California Senator Barbara Boxer chairs.
We’re sure this has been noted by Glenn Beck, or will soon be so, but isn’t it ironic that major legislation on climate change is in the hands of Massachusettians and Californians in both the House and Senate? The irony stems from the fact that an ultimate goal (or at least consequence) of the bills will be for the rest of country to start paying the same electricity rates currently “enjoyed” by residents of those states.
We’ll see what happens after the Environment Committee reports out the bill — a foregone conclusion given the makeup of the Committee — but perhaps the real action yesterday was at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, as the EPA released its Proposed Greenhouse Gas “Tailoring” Rule. (See the fact sheet at http://www.epa.gov/nsr/fs20090930action.html)
Even more irony there, as the EPA makes its home in the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center. President Reagan was no big fan of the EPA, and would be particularly concerned about the EPA going after global warming caused by tailors.
No wait, that’s not what it is — though to read many of the headlines this morning, one would certainly get the impression that jackbooted EPA bureaucrats were preparing to shut down American industry in the name of helping the French fight global warming.
The real story is that one way or another, climate change regulations from the EPA are coming. The Supreme Court decided that course back in April 2007 when it found that the EPA could regulate GHGs under the Clean Air Act. And one key concern is that the Act is a pretty blunt instrument to be applied to GHGs rather than traditional toxic pollutants. It needs to be, well, “tailored.” And that’s what the EPA released yesterday: a fairly commonsense proposal to ensure that only major emitters of GHGs — not you, me and our favorite tailor — will be regulated under the Act.
So, once again the lesson is: read the news if you’d like, but make sure you read behind the news, too.
Previous Post
May 21, 2012
May 11, 2012
April 30, 2012
