For More Information See:     
Sari Gelzer and Kelpie Wilson | Climate Change and the Courts    [

Also see below:     
EPA Won't Specify Global Warming Plans    [

    Bush Administration's Response to Global Warming Under Scrutiny
    By Richard Simon
    The Los Angeles Times

    Tuesday 24 April 2007

    Washington - The Bush administration's chief environmental officer came under fire from the Democratic majority on Capitol Hill this morning for failing to act more aggressively to address global warming in response to the Supreme Court ruling that greenhouse gas emissions are subject to federal regulation.

    Democrats on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, led by Chairwoman Barbara Boxer of California, pressed Stephen Johnson, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, to commit to what action he would take in response to the court ruling, but Johnson would not say how soon - or whether - his agency would act to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.

    "We will move expeditiously but we will move responsibly," Johnson repeatedly told lawmakers. EPA must determine whether greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health or welfare, he said.

    Johnson announced his agency was inviting public comment on a request by California to require automakers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles but also declined to say when - or if - he would approve the state's request.

    Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) told Johnson that the ruling made clear that EPA "does, in fact, have the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate vehicle carbon dioxide emissions, contrary to the agency's insistence otherwise. I hope this will compel your agency not only to recognize its authority but also to act on it."

    Boxer scolded Johnson for lacking a sense of urgency in dealing with climate change, and she vowed to summon Johnson back before the committee again and again to grill him on the agency's progress.

    Said Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.): "It's time for this administration to stop denying the real impacts of global warming and instead confront them. Why has it been so difficult to convince you that your agency should act to protect our environment?"

    Republican committee members decried the court ruling and warned that precipitous action could harm the economy and lead to higher energy costs.

    Some, want EPA to "rush, rush, rush with new carbon regulations," said Sen. Christopher Bond (R-Mo.). "They will be too impatient to accept that regulations that will pervade almost every corner of the economy, threaten the jobs of millions, raise the heating and power bills of hundreds of millions, might take a little time."

    Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, the committee's top Republican and a leading skeptic of man-made climate change, assailed the court ruling, declaring it "usurps congressional authority" and "represents judicial activism at its worst."

    "The simple fact is that this issue is not only extremely complex from a scientific perspective, but also from an economic one," Inhofe said. "How it is handled will have profound consequences for every American because fossil-fueled energy is the very lifeblood of our economy."

    "Mr. Administrator, you have a mess on your hands," Inhofe added. "I urge you to think carefully before you proceed."

 

---

    Go to Original

    EPA Won't Specify Global Warming Plans
    By H. Josef Hebert
    The Associated Press

    Tuesday 24 April 2007

    Washington - The head of the Environmental Protection Agency repeatedly refused to say Tuesday how soon he will comply with a Supreme Court ruling and decide whether to regulate carbon dioxide, the leading gas linked to global warming.

    EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, appearing before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, was asked repeatedly to provide a timetable for responding to the April 2 Supreme Court decisions. The court said the Clean Air Act makes clear the agency must regulate carbon dioxide if it's found that it endangers public health.

    The legal argument has been settled and "now there's is an unmistakable green light to take action now," Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., the committee's chairman, told Johnson: "There is no excuse for delay."

    But Johnson called the court's ruling complex and said he did not want to be tied to a specific timetable.

    "I'm not going to be forced into making a snap decision," he later told reporters.

    When Boxer said EPA staff had indicated the agency could make a decision on regulating carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles in three or four months, Johnson said he would "not commit to a specific four-month schedule."

    "We will move expeditiously, but we are going to be moving responsibly," said Johnson, a variation of a phrase he used again and again when pressed by senators on a timetable.

    "I don't hear in your voice a sense of urgency," Boxer told Johnson.

    While the court's decision focused on tailpipe emissions from cars and trucks, Johnson said the agency is evaluating what impact the ruling might have on the need to regulate releases from power plants and industrial sources as well.

    "Why has it been so difficult to convince you that your agency should protect the environment?" Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., asked Johnson as he sat alone at the witness table.

    "Stop denying the impact of global warming," Lautenberg continued.

    Republican senators came to Johnson's defense.

    "You are being pressured ... to make carbon regulation the central organizing principle of our society. I caution you against it," Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., told Johnson. Imhofe is perhaps the most vocal global warming skeptic in the Senate.

    Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., added, "some have promised to hound you for quick action" on carbon dioxide regulation, a reference to Boxer's promise that she would continue to press the EPA on the issue.

    The Bush administration has long argued that it had no authority to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act, an issue on which the court in 5-4 decision rejected. While the court did not say the EPA must regulate carbon, it said if it doesn't, it must show that carbon dioxide emissions are not a danger to public health.

    Johnson reiterated President Bush has acknowledged concern about climate change and provided a long list of actions he said the administration is taking to deal with the issue, short of regulating greenhouse gases.

    "What is the most serious environmental hazard that we face," Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., asked, seeking an acknowledgment of risks of climate change.

    "I don't see one being most serious," replied Johnson, a career scientist at the EPA before being named administrator in early 2005.

    Whitehouse asked the question again. And Johnson again wouldn't be pinned down.

    "You astonish me," Whitehouse snapped.

    Later two former EPA administrators - Carol Browner from the Clinton administration, and William Reilly from the first Bush administration - said it is clear that carbon dioxide should be controlled because of its impact on global warming.

    "If I were EPA administrator," Reilly said, "I would welcome that authority."