April 15
Be careful what you wish for. That was the warning Rep. John Dingell sounded April 10 when he sensed some of his colleagues would prefer that the EPA -- and not Congress -- regulate the heat-trapping gases contributing to global warming.
The Michigan Democrat rues the day that the Supreme Court issued its Massachusetts v. EPA ruling because heīs convinced U.S. industries will pay heavily if the Environmental Protection Agency begins monitoring carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
Thoughtful, comprehensive cap-and-trade legislation needs to trump the "glorious mess" of confusion and litigation that will ensue if the EPA employs the Clean Air Act to manage emissions, said Dingell, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
The panelīs Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee met April 10 to listen to five witnesses weigh in on the impact of the high courtīs landmark 5-4 decision issued April 2, 2007.
"I urge my colleagues to listen closely to the types of greenhouse gas regulations that EPA could impose under its existing authority," Dingell said. "Ask yourself whether they are likely to impose greater hardship on U.S. industry than would carefully crafted legislation that achieves the same or greater greenhouse gas reductions."
House staffers are writing a cap-and-trade bill aimed at reducing emissions 60 to 80 percent by 2050. It is not clear when the legislation will be ready for review.
Dingell attempted to hold a puzzled Bob Meyers to "yes" or "no" answers during his post-testimony questioning session. Meyers, now an assistant administrator with the EPAīs Office for Air and Radiation is a former Republican staffer for the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Though Meyers was vague about the Bush administrationīs response to the Supreme Court remand, he did articulate that the agency would release an analysis on the "endangerment finding" later this spring. Such a finding would mean the EPA has the scientific evidence that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are a threat to human health.
Meyers and other EPA officials have cited limits on tailpipe emissions and fuels, New Source review permits and restructured National Ambient Air Quality Standards as method for controlling carbon dioxide.
Rep. Joe Barton, the ranking Republican of the full committee, agrees with Dingell that the Supreme Courtīs ruling was wrong because the Clean Air Act wasnīt designed to regulate carbon dioxide. However, unlike Dingell, the Texan also insists Congress should not bother with global warming legislation because climate change science isnīt settled and the economy is bumpy.
About an hour into the lengthy hearing, Rep. Ed Markey became frustrated with the entire exchange.
"Weīre taking aspirational goals and turning them into procrastinational goals," the Massachusetts Democrat said.
On April 2, Markeyīs 15-member House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming voted 12-0 to subpoena documents showing the EPAīs progress in making an "endangerment finding" and proposing national emissions standards.
"Itīs insane to leave this kind of judgment to regulatory action and litigation," Dingell said, adding that EPA officials would likely be tarred and feathered for acting. "Structuring a comprehensive climate change program is our responsibility. It should not fall to EPA by default."
E-mail Waste News correspondent Elizabeth McGowan at elizabethherron@hotmail.com
To subscribe or visit go to: http://www.wastenews.com