On Climate Change, Progress at EPA Makes Senate Look Ridiculous

Yesterday, the Senate unveiled its version of legislation intended to cap climate-altering greenhouse gas emissions. Sens. John Kerry and Joseph Lieberman introduced the bill to much fanfare, yet the prospects of passage appear dim.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency continues its deliberative march down the regulatory path. Today, EPA announced new limits on greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources. Under the rule, 900 permits would be issued to facilities emitting greenhouse gases above certain levels, according to the Washington Post. The limits will take effect in 2011. The rule comes on the heels of an April rule that strengthened fuel efficiency requirements in passenger vehicles in turn limiting their emissions.

Sen. Lieberman is hopeful the rules will prod the Senate into action, the Post says.

When it comes to greenhouse gas emissions limits, there are basically two types of senators. The first type prefers legislation that sets emissions standards. They think existing regulatory options, primarily those available under the Clean Air Act, were created for traditional, toxic pollutants and are inappropriate for greenhouse gases.

The other type prefers no controls whatsoever, regulatory or legislative, either because they fear the economic consequences or because they believe global climate change is a hoax.

Both sides would claim to have one thing in common: a bias against regulation. Senators of either school of thought would have you believe that EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations are inappropriate at best and catastrophic at worst, and certainly not in the interest of their constituents. Wouldn’t you think then, that most senators would support a legislative proposal that they can work to shape and that also overrides the EPA?

If you answered “yes,” you don’t know much about the U.S. Senate, where rational thought goes to die. The Senate bill would reduce U.S. emissions levels over time, 83 percent by 2050. It would also severely limit EPA regulation and some state regulation, sweetening the pot for potential supporters.

The bill also appeals to the anti-global-climate-change-policy crowd and the pro-energy-industry crowd. It contains loan guarantees for the nuclear industry and practically gives away pollution permits to utilities, The New York Times reports. It would also create an advisory panel whose recommendations could undermine existing pollution regulations, Clean Air Watch says. One step forward, two steps back.

And yet the bill seems destined to go nowhere. “There is also no assurance that the bill will break through the crowded Senate calendar to reach the floor this year,” the Times says, intimating that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid won’t prioritize the Kerry-Lieberman bill amid financial reform, appropriations bills, and weeks upon weeks of vacation. In case you had any doubt, “No Republicans have stepped forward to support the two senators’ efforts.”

Personally, I’m supportive of almost any legislative solution to capping greenhouse gas emissions. But while I may be supportive, I’m sure not hopeful with the U.S. Senate on the case.

back to Blog