With the support of special interest lobbyists, congressional Republicans are pushing legislation to hinder the federal government's ability to address climate change. Proposed legislation would halt early efforts by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to place new limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

H.R. 6666 would prevent the EPA from issuing new rules to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, the bill would amend the Clean Air Act to read, "The term 'air pollutant' shall not include carbon dioxide." Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) introduced the bill July 30.

Blackburn introduced the bill in response to an EPA notice announcing plans to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. The so-called Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) is not a binding policy proposal. Instead, it solicits public comment on a variety of options for regulating emissions. Environmentalists criticized the ANPRM for not going far enough, while special interest lobbyists complained of potentially large compliance costs.

EPA issued the ANPRM after the U.S. Supreme Court found that greenhouse gas emissions could be considered an air pollutant under the act. As a result of the decision in Massachusetts vs. EPA, EPA decided to begin a rulemaking to curb emissions. Previously, EPA held that greenhouse gases were not a pollutant, thereby preventing the agency from using air quality rules to cut emissions.

Massachusetts vs. EPA is considered a landmark case and was hailed by environmentalists and others concerned about the effects of greenhouse gases on climate stability. H.R. 6666 would effectively render moot the high court's decision.

Blackburn and the bill's 22 Republican co-sponsors are receiving high-powered support from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber, a national organization representing business interests, is lobbying Congress in support of H.R. 6666.

On Sept. 9, Chamber Vice President R. Bruce Josten wrote to lawmakers announcing the beginning of an intensive lobbying campaign: "Over the next month, the Chamber will educate members of Congress and the public about the different options EPA is weighing and the impact those options would have on businesses."

Part of the Chamber's education efforts includes a new report on the number of businesses and other entities that may be subject to regulation under EPA's tentative plans. In the report, the Chamber portends that bakeries, pet supply stores, and places of worship, among others, will fall under EPA's regulatory purview if new rules are finalized.

However, compared to EPA's own estimates, the Chamber report grossly overstates the potential impact. For example, the Chamber estimates one million "commercial" sources — offices, food service businesses, and schools, among others — would be subject to EPA's proposal. However, EPA estimates only 88,000 sources would have to institute new pollution control measures.

Frank O'Donnell, president of the nonprofit advocacy group Clean Air Watch, told BNA news service (subscription), "I don't think any rational person believes the EPA would even consider placing limits on churches or donut shops." On his blog, O'Donnell said the Chamber is using "ugly scare tactics" in its lobbying campaign.

In the ANPRM, EPA acknowledges that new regulations may need to be tailored to avoid imposing burdens on small businesses. Although the Clean Air Act sets emission thresholds, EPA used the notice to propose several legal options for potentially exempting small sources.

While the Chamber calls the costs of greenhouse gas regulation "devastating," American businesses are already taking steps to limit emissions in advance of federal requirements. In a new report by the Carbon Disclosure Project, 32 percent of companies surveyed have instituted emissions reduction programs. "Given their historically heavy carbon footprints and extended global supply chains, manufacturing companies are often on the leading edge of carbon emissions management, tracking and reporting," the report says. The Project surveys S&P 500 companies about their emissions habits.

Other sources of greenhouse gas emissions are clamoring for greenhouse gas regulation at the federal level. A spokesman for a New Jersey power plant, which will be subject to a new regional emissions reduction compact for northeast states, told The Wall Street Journal, "We need to remove the imbalance as quickly as we can…We need to transition quickly to a national program."

The Chamber's efforts are the latest in a series of campaigns that corporate and anti-government lobbyists have waged to prevent EPA from taking meaningful action to address the growing threat of climate change.

In late 2007, EPA had been prepared to issue an official rulemaking proposal which would have placed new limits on greenhouse gas emissions from both vehicles and stationary sources. However, the proposal was scuttled at the behest of ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute, according to congressional investigators. The oil industry lobbyists funneled their concerns through officials at the White House Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Vice President Dick Cheney.

The Heritage Foundation, an anti-regulatory think tank, also opposed EPA's initial plan. In March, The Los Angeles Times reported, "Edwin Meese III and fellow attorneys at the Heritage Foundation, a Washington-based think tank, spent months sending detailed legal analyses and memos to 'everyone we could think of' at the White House and in Congress, said Michael Franc, the foundation's vice president of government relations."

Despite the Chamber's support for H.R. 6666, the legislation is unlikely to move in a Congress facing a constrained calendar and pressing economic issues. The 110th Congress is expected to adjourn for the year by the end of September so members can focus on the November elections.