Is Bubble Bursting for Climate in Near Term?
Could there already be an about-face? The president-elect's energy & environment picks held real promise for action on climate. Now there's talk of the virtues of coal. If Obama is truly bullish on the issue, there are two steps he can take immediately.
Yesterday I wrote about some waffling in the House of Representatives on getting a climate bill through Congress this year – Speaker Pelosi suggested that such a bill may not be in the cards for 2009. Today comes some good news: Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), chair of the Energy and Commerce committee, vows to get climate and energy legislation out of committee by Memorial Day. But also making its way in the media today is talk of coal by some of Obama's nominees for his energy and environment team (here and here). Are we seeing a climate waffle on the part of the soon-to-be-sworn-in Obama administration?
Coal Is Big Topic in Confirmation Hearings
During the recent Senate confirmation hearings, Lisa Jackson, the president-elect's choice to head the Environmental Protection Agency, called coal "a vital resource for the country." Steven Chu, the man in line to lead the Department of Energy, acknowledged that "coal is an abundant resource." (Watch their hearings: Jackson, Chu.)
Now, I understand these comments come at a time of economic upheaval. And since about half of the country's power comes from coal-burning power plants, turning our backs immediately on coal is not an option. And even if we did, as Chu explained, India, China, and Russia are not going to follow suit. So we need to figure out a better way to use coal while at the same time developing energy alternatives to reduce our coal dependency – to avoid the fuel that is otherwise Chu's "worst nightmare."
There's also an ongoing climate upheaval, whose costs we are shoving onto the next generation the longer we wait to do something about it.
So, putting aside coal for the moment, what can President-Elect Obama do to demonstrate his promise to tackle global warming?
Grant California the Waiver It Needs to Clean Up Tailpipe Pollution
First off, he can direct Lisa Jackson, once she becomes the official EPA director, to grant California the waiver it needs to start regulating carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from cars.
Here's the backstory in a nutshell: In 2002, California passed the first U.S. law to cut greenhouse gas pollution from tailpipes – commonly called the Pavely law after Fran Pavley, the California legislator who proposed the bill. Because California's air pollution laws predate the Clean Air Act, it is the only state in the union that can set its own regulations on car emissions; the only restriction is that California’s standards must be stricter than federal standards. All California needs is a waiver from EPA allowing it to do so.
Once a waiver is granted to California, other states have the option to adopt California's standard instead of the federal standard. So far, more than a third of the states have chosen to adopt California’s standards on greenhouse gas emissions.
But there were roadblocks. The car companies sued, arguing California cannot regulate vehicular pollution because only the federal government can do this (think Corporate Average Fuel Economy aka CAFE standards). In April 2007 the Supreme Court ruled against the car companies, arguing that California can indeed regulate greenhouse gas pollution.
After the Supreme Court victory, the last hurdle was to get a waiver from EPA to go ahead with the regulations. In a break with decades of precedent, as the New York Times put it, EPA denied the waiver. Outgoing EPA director Stephen Johnson said he wanted to avoid "a confusing patchwork of state rules."
If the new administration is serious about climate, it will end the stalling and grant California the waiver. Cleaning up car pollution will go a long way in reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.
EPA Should Start Regulating CO2
Obama can also direct EPA to start regulating CO2 as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. That means that the new EPA director can hit the ground running by developing rules to do so.
This too stems from a Supreme Court decision from 2007. In a landmark decision the high court ruled in Massachusetts et al. v. EPA that greenhouse gases are covered in the Clean Air Act. It also found that the U.S. government has the authority to regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Not surprisingly, the Bush administration chose to not follow the direction of the Supreme Court and punted on CO2 regulations. The Obama administration can and should do a "180" on this one also.
So next week, we will witness an historic inauguration: the first African-American president of the United States will take the oath of office and swear to uphold the Constitution. Wouldn't it be great if the next big news item was that the new president also acted on climate change?
