Two fingers to the EPA.
Finally the people of America are speaking out vehemently against the misguided decision by the Bush administration not to ratify the Kyoto protocol or, as in a number of incidents, recognise that climate change is occurring.
The current dispute surrounds The Clean Air Act, which charges the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with regulating harmful vehicle emissions. However, the EPA argues strongly that carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, does not meet the act’s definition of pollution. Not only this, but it ever goes so far as to state that to regulate such levels would be of no benefit if other nations don’t do the same.
Here they’re making a not-so-subtle hint toward Kyoto and its exclusion of poor nations from any environmental regulatory pressures. Oddly, and this is a point on which I agree with the EPA, India and China, two very big polluters, are included in Kyoto’s definition of ‘poor’ despite their booming economies and fast rising emissions through processes of industrialisation. Regardless of who has signed up, it is very selfish and apathetic to go about ignoring the problem and do nothing.
Thus, twelve states, three city governments, various activist groups, and American Samoa, a soon-to-be-submerged Pacific territory are making a legal case against Bush’s decision against the regulation of carbon emissions. A further six states, two power companies, a ski resort, and assorted clergymen, Indian tribes and a few others in turn support them.
Their biggest problem will lie in the fact that they have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that, as a consequence of not ratifying the Kyoto agreement, America has seen a negative impact on the welfare of its people. This, as with anything surrounding the science of climatology, shall be something difficult to prove and persuade.
Another sticking point is that The Supreme Court may decreeing that carbon dioxide is indeed a pollutant, but that the EPA is free to regulate as it pleases. Given the EPA’s current stance, such a decision may change nothing.
I sit with my fingers tightly crossed that this succeeds. Even if it doesn’t, changes are already under way. As The Economist rightly states:
[California] has passed another law that will first cap and then gradually reduce industrial emissions of greenhouse gases. Seven eastern states have formed something called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which will treat emissions from power plants in the same way. Almost 400 mayors around the country have signed a non-binding agreement to reduce their cities’ emissions in keeping with the Kyoto Protocol. Many members of the incoming Congress, and several of the leading presidential contenders for 2008, are much keener on emissions caps than Mr Bush. Change, so to speak, is in the air.
Comments
2 Responses to “Two fingers to the EPA.”
Leave a Reply
I recently bought the newest edition of the Economist’s excellent ‘the world in …’ series. One of the articles discusses what Bush might do in his remaining year in office.
It makes a powerful case that he might well introduce environmental laws to curb American emissions.
1. Bush’s legacy will be remembered only for Holy Wars and the support of torture if he doesn’t do something ‘good’ to win back public opinion.
2. The incoming President whoever he may be (never a she in the US) will doubtlessly run on a climate change agenda thanks in small part to the likes Arnie and Al Gore in making it cool. HENCE industry would rather they have Bush making such a policy - because it will be much more leniant on them - then any incoming president who is not quite as well entrenched into the military industrail establishment as the Bush family is.
3. By making american energy self-dependent it is a huge security coup - if America doesn’t require Oil then future wars in the Middle East will not be necessary.
4. Farmers, traditionally a war loving christian bunch, can be won over by plugging the possibilty for them to grow grain to be turned into ethenol. The fact that ethenol production is of arguable benefit to the environment is besides the point - it will win over another lobby group.
So the point is I am hopeful that Bush will introduce some sort of climate change bill in the new year. But it will not be as ‘green’ as it needs to be - it will still exist and hopefully with a Democrat or John McCain election victory the bill can be strengthened.
Even if it is motivated for political gain, I certainly hope something of that sort does take place.
Point 4 is an interesting issue: So much farm land in the southern states is not being used for ethanol production that there’s actually a grain shortage for cattle across America.