Hard-core representatives of organized environmental interest groups (aka “enviros”) like to believe that the challenge of global climate change merits action on its own, with no consideration for political deals or trade-offs.  If all of the most extreme scientific modeling can be believed, they may be right, but since much of the American public, and by extension their elected representatives do not so believe, in the real world of congressional policy-making, trade-offs are mandatory.

And some trade-offs — more nuclear power, regulatory certainty — actually will advance the goals of climate change advocates by hastening the deployment of low emissions clean energy projects.

One such trade-off is discussed in this morning’s E&E (http://www.eenews.net/EEDaily/2010/04/22/1/) under the title, “Voinovich throws curveball at senators’ plan to limit ghg regs in climate bill.”  It may be a curveball to some, but it’s straight down the middle to this writer.

The esteemed Senator George Voinovich (R-OH and sadly retiring at the end of this Congress) has long been known as an independent-minded deficit hawk.  He’s also long advocated better coordination (actually some coordination would be better than what we’ve got now) between environmental and energy laws.  And that’s what he’s proposing, as reported this morning.

In essence, Senator Voinovich believes that comprehensive climate legislation should be, well, comprehensive.  He is rightly concerned that he and his colleagues may make a deal on economy-constricting limits on ghg emissions only to find that other statutes can be used by creative regulators and plaintiffs’ lawyers to impose restrictions beyond those that elected representatives have voted on.

The doctrine Senator Voinovich seeks to employ is known as “preemption.”  Simply put, that means that whatever law Congress passes to authorize regulation of ghg emissions will supersede and render ineffective (preempt) other statutes that might be contorted to require further emissions.  Sounds pretty logical, particularly since one of the sounder arguments that advocates for climate change legislation make is that energy companies need regulatory certainty before they’ll build new clean energy sources.

Unfortunately, the hard core enviro community hates preemption.  They dislike it primarily because they know that any policy passed by Congress will necessarily be a compromise between environmental and economic values.  They don’t want that compromise to preempt their future efforts to use the courts or friendly regulators to go beyond the deal and require further cuts using other laws.

One such enviro is quoted this morning as calling the Senator’s proposal “outrageous.”  It’s not.  It’s common  sense.

Previous Post  

Next Post

Iran’s Desperation Increases
May 18, 2012

Diplomatic Council Launch and Release of Oil and the Trade Deficit
May 17, 2012

Increased domestic production = increased energy security
May 16, 2012