Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, [8], 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: Re: Bush fights Congress, States, and Supreme Court over greenhouse gas rule | |
|
Author: Duncan7 |
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 08:46:45 04/06/07 Fri In reply to: Stephen 's message, "Bush fights Congress, States, and Supreme Court over greenhouse gas rule" on 09:46:06 04/05/07 Thu He's right. Without a world effort what we do is meaninngless. Just like what I do is meaningless compared to what you guys do. >April 4, 2007 > >Bush Splits With Congress and States on Emissions > >By FELICITY BARRINGER and WILLIAM YARDLEY > >WASHINGTON, April 3 — A day after the Supreme Court >ruled that the federal government had the authority to >regulate heat-trapping gases, President Bush said he >thought that the measures he had taken so far were >sufficient. > >But the court’s ruling was being welcomed by Congress >and the states, which are already using the decision >to speed their own efforts to regulate the gases that >contribute to global climate change. As a result, >Congress and state legislatures are almost certain to >be the arenas for far-reaching and bruising lobbying >battles. > >Mr. Bush made it clear in remarks on Tuesday that he >thought his proposal to increase automobile fuel >efficiency was sufficient for the moment; he gave no >indication he would ask the Environmental Protection >Agency to regulate emissions of heat-trapping gases. > >“Whatever we do,” he said, “must be in concert with >what happens internationally.” He added, “Unless there >is an accord with China, China will produce greenhouse >gases that will offset anything we do in a brief >period of time.” > >But with Congress and the states more determined than >ever to act, some of the nation’s largest industries — >including automobile manufacturers and the oil >companies that make their gasoline, and electric >utilities and the coal companies that fire many of >their boilers — now face the increasingly certain >prospect of expensive controls on emissions of carbon >dioxide, the most common heat-trapping gas associated >with climate change. > >At least 300 bills have been filed in 40 states that >address heat-trapping gases and climate change in some >form, said Adela Flores-Brennan, a policy analyst with >the National Conference of State Legislatures. > >In Washington, Congress has already begun a process >that would eventually apportion both the >responsibility for cuts in emissions that could cost >tens of billions of dollars and the benefits and >incentives that could mean billions of dollars of new >income. > >“Obviously, nobody wants to bear a disproportionate >share of the burden,” said Representative Edward J. >Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts and chairman of the >newly created House Select Committee on Energy >Independence and Global Warming. “It’s now going to be >a multidimensional chess game with the planet’s future >in the balance.” > >The way legislation apportions emissions cuts among >industries — and, as important, how the credits earned >by companies that reduce emissions are allocated — >will be the focus of the lobbying, said Mr. Markey and >lobbyists for environmental groups and industry. > >“It’s incumbent on everyone to roll their sleeves up, >if they haven’t already, to deal seriously with this >problem,” said Luke Popovich of the National Mining >Association, the trade group for the coal mine >operators who will be at the center of the lobbying. >“If pain concentrates the mind, there will be more >concentration on the issue now.” > >Coal is the major source of electricity in more than >half the states, and coal is the fuel most closely >associated with high levels of emissions of carbon >dioxide. And coal interests have a bipartisan >audience. The United Mine Workers is a natural >Democratic constituency, while the National Mining >Association has been a reliable supporter of the Bush >administration. > >“There are differences within the industry,” Mr. >Popovich said, “but we are allied in favor of a >solution that preserves coal’s growth in the United >States.” > >Next to the electric-utility sector, which is >responsible for about 40 percent of emissions of >heat-trapping gases, Mr. Markey said, comes the >transportation sector, which contributes roughly 30 >percent. > >The auto industry has long opposed increases in >fuel-efficiency standards, which automatically mean a >reduction in heat-trapping gases. The oil industry has >resisted controls on carbon dioxide emissions. Until >recently, the two industries, while occasionally >sniping at each other, had avoided explicit >endorsement of the regulation that was most feared by >the other. > >But, with the likelihood of Congressional action >increasing, that informal nonaggression pact has >ended. Executives of the Big Three auto companies >testifying in the House last month explicitly >supported regulation of carbon dioxide. And a senior >oil industry executive earlier this year gave a speech >advocating increases in fuel economy. > >The Supreme Court found Monday that the Environmental >Protection Agency had erred in justifying its decision >not to regulate carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping >gases. The court said that by providing nothing more >than a “laundry list of reasons not to regulate,” the >agency had defied the Clean Air Act’s “clear statutory >command.” The ruling also said that the agency could >not sidestep its authority to regulate heat-trapping >gases unless it could provide a scientific basis for >its refusal to do so. > >In Congress, controls on automobile emissions remain a >work in progress. In more than a dozen states, >beginning with California in 2002, they have become a >fact — although these laws have been stayed pending >legal challenges. Those challenges were greatly >weakened, however, by the Supreme Court ruling. > >“States are not going to wait,” said Dennis McLerran, >executive director of the Puget Sound Clean Air >Agency, created by Washington State. “States are going >to continue to act on this. If there is some confusion >from this or if it creates greater pressure on >Congress, then that’s all to the good.” > >Washington is among more than a dozen states that have >followed California’s lead in setting goals to >restrict carbon dioxide emissions, and it is one of >five Western states that have formed an alliance to >combat climate change. States in the Northeast have >formed a similar alliance. > >Several environmental leaders said the court decision >could persuade still other states to pass >climate-change legislation. > >Terry Tamminen, the former secretary of the California >Environmental Protection Agency under Gov. Arnold >Schwarzenegger and now a private consultant to states >pursuing California-style caps on emissions, said he >had recently worked with elected leaders in Wisconsin, >South Carolina, Florida and Maryland. Some of these >states are more conservative than states in the West >and Northeast and have not been strongly associated >with efforts to restrict pollution. The court ruling, >Mr. Tamminen suggested, “will give cover for those >Republicans who feel they need to take action.” > >“They can say, ‘Look, the debate is now over,’ ” he >said. > >California has been in the vanguard, first with its >bill to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from vehicle >tailpipes in 2002, and then with its landmark 2006 law >requiring a 25 percent reduction in the state’s carbon >dioxide emissions by 2020. > >Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington have joined >California to pursue a regional plan to cut emissions. >The idea is to make it profitable for industries to >pursue pollution reduction through cap-and-trade plans >that would allow companies with emissions lower than >the allowed caps to sell credits to companies that >exceed them. > >Most of the legislation in Congress follows the >cap-and-trade model. > >Outside the West and the Northeast, states are still >finding their way. In North Carolina, government >commissions are weighing measures like restricting >auto emissions and establishing so-called renewable >portfolios, which many states are proposing as a way >to balance their energy supply between >carbon-producing fuels like coal, oil and natural gas, >and clean, renewable fuel sources like wind and solar >power. > >In Illinois, Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich has proposed >restricting carbon emissions to 60 percent of 1990 >levels by the year 2050, said Steve Frenkel, an aide >to the governor. > >“You’ve seen a lot of leadership coming out of the >coasts,” Mr. Frenkel said. “Looking in the Midwest, >where there’s a lot of coal and industrial pollution, >how we handle this here is important for how we handle >this nationally.” > >With about half the states getting at least 50 percent >of their electric power from coal, Congress will have >to wrestle with the disproportionate impact that >climate change legislation could have around the >country. > >“You’ve got 35 senators reliably for a pretty strong >program,” said David Doniger, a lawyer with the >Natural Resources Defense Council. “How do you get >that to 50 or 60? You have to get senators who come >from states where coal is important, autos are >important and agriculture is important.” > > >href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/04/washington/04cl >imate.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/04/washingto >n/04climate.html [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |