Share

EPA Urged to Act on Climate, Not Wait for Congress

by: Dina Cappiello  |  The Associated Press

photo
An EPA proposal that could lead to regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act has put pressure on Capitol Hill to act. (Photo: AP)

    Arlington, Virginia - The Environmental Protection Agency should not wait for Congress before taking steps to control the gases blamed for global warming, supporters of federal greenhouse-gas regulation said Monday.

    The EPA hearing is the first of two public forums on the agency's April finding that concentrations of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere pose dangers to human health and welfare - and that emissions from new motor vehicles and engines are contributing to the problem.

    The proposal could eventually lead to regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, starting with emissions standards for motor vehicles.

    "We must reduce greenhouse gas emissions now without further delay and without waiting for a perfect solution," said Navis Bermudez, speaking on behalf of New York Gov. David A. Paterson.

    "While we also hope that Congress enacts comprehensive federal climate change legislation, we believe EPA can act now under the existing Clean Air Act without waiting for such legislation."

    The House Energy and Commerce Committee planned to begin work later on Monday on legislation that, for the first time, would limit the emissions blamed for global warming from large industrial sources.

    The EPA proposal has put pressure on Capitol Hill to take action.

    "It is clear that the choice is no longer between doing something and doing nothing to curb greenhouse gas pollution. It is a choice between regulation and legislation," said Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass. "We believe that the bill we have crafted in the Energy and Commerce Committee ... protects consumers and provides businesses with the certainty they need to adapt to our clean energy future."

    Which proposal will ultimately win out depends mostly on Congress. The House bill would largely pre-empt the EPA from forcing industries to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. Instead, it writes a new chapter that would put a price on each ton of pollution and allow industry to decide how to meet increasingly more stringent targets.

    President Barack Obama has made it clear that he prefers new legislation to cope with the problem.

    In his weekly radio address Saturday, the president called the bill "a plan that will finally reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil and cap the carbon pollution that threatens our health and our climate."

    The agency was compelled to weigh in on the threat posed by greenhouse gases after a 2007 Supreme Court ruling found them to be air pollutants.

    Industry groups and Republicans quickly sounded the alarm saying the finding could eventually prompt the EPA to regulate pollution from a whole suite of sources and burden an already troubled economy.

    That view was reiterated Monday by Bryan Brendle, director of energy and resources policy for the National Association of Manufacturers.

    Brendle told EPA officials the Clean Air Act was ill-suited to deal with the global problem of climate change and would "pre-empt ongoing congressional debate on an issue that would impact all sectors of a struggling economy."

    Supporters tried to head off those criticisms Monday.

    "We are concerned that other commenters have used hyperbole to describe the consequences of potential endangerment finding claiming it will wreak havoc ... we disagree strongly," said Nancy Kruger, deputy director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, which represents state and local air pollution control agencies.

    More than a hundred people are signed up to testify at the EPA hearing, including environmentalists, scientists, religious leaders and climate change skeptics.

    The House Energy committee intends to complete work and vote on the climate and energy bill by the end of the week. But Republicans concerned that the 932-page proposal will drive up energy prices and harm the economy are expected to drag out the proceedings by offering hundreds of amendments.

    The bill is H.R. 2454.

    -------

    On the Web:

    â€¢ Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov/

    â€¢ EPA Hearing information and webcast: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/hearing_washington-may18.html

    â€¢ EPA Endangerment finding: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html

    â€¢ House Energy and Commerce Committee: http://energycommerce.house.gov

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

EPA regulation of pollution

EPA regulation of pollution entering clean air appears to be the only possible way to avoid lobbyist control of congress. Though "...industry groups and Republicans quickly sounded the alarm saying the finding could eventually prompt the EPA to regulate pollution from a whole suite of sources and burden an already troubled economy," this is of course the salient crux of the matter. Climate change due to pollution is only one symptom of pollution burdens destroying the economy. There is nothing wrong with success or wealth, the problem with the old economy is that both are often gained through the savings from not cleaning up one's messes. It is easy to become wealthy if the expense of clean up is paid for by everyone else instead of the politically well connected polluter.

DOT needs to redesign the

DOT needs to redesign the multilaned parking lots that snake across the nation to dramatically reduce grid lock & open escape routes in the event of emergency

Cap and Trade = Special

Cap and Trade = Special Interest. I'm sick and tired of this lie that 'the science is no longer a matter of debate' - it is amongst those who are allowed air time. If you doubt this, you owe it to all the rest of the nation to watch The Great Global Warming Swindle, which is a BBC documentary chronicling the fraud of this fake-science-presented-as-fact. The cap and trade lobby uses green politics as the 'useful idiots' to bring about this insanity. Those who say 'well it'll be good to reduce pollution, anyway, so it's good' are living in a fantasy world - it will finally destroy our economy - you can argue climatology all you want, but you can't argue arithmetic - we are broke and Cap and Trade will be the last nail in the coffin. Make the focus on reducing mercury, dioxin and other toxic pollution - note that CO2 is not a toxin at all, it is essential to all living things. Science is politicized and just because someone can round up and fund a bunch of scientists to prove some BS theory doesn't mean it's true - be very suspicious when someone wants to end the debate in a hurry. Also be very suspicious when O's science advisor is openly advocating GeoEngineering - God help us all if we indulge that insanity.

I see no evidence of global

I see no evidence of global warming. -- And the only thing I really don't like is the sand that falls down my nose when I stick my head back into the sand.