Today, the Environmental Protection Agency took another step on the road toward regulation of mobile pollution sources (cars and trucks). It issued formal findings that greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide and five others) endanger human health, and that the greenhouse gases cause or contribute toward pollution.
"Well, yes, isn't that rather obvious?" Below the fold, I applaud the EPA's action but warn progressives not to be complacent about it.
A dozen environmental groups originally petitioned the EPA to declare that greenhouse gases endanger human health in 1999. The Bush administration ignored them (or worse), they sued, the Supreme Court spoke in 2007, and it was not until April 2009 that Things Started To Happen. Today's findings are a legally necessary step before requiring that cars get better miles per gallon, expected next spring. A handy EPA timeline (1 page pdf) illustrates its answer to a FAQ (PDF, p.3):
Did EPA rush to issue these Findings?
No. It has been over 2½ years since the Supreme Court determined that greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act. It has been more than 14 months since EPA issued its Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on this issue. Finally, it has been more than 10 years since the original petition for rulemaking that led to the Supreme Court’s decision was filed. Since that time, EPA has been evaluating the entire body of scientific literature, which has become increasingly compelling that the root cause of global warming is greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere and that the impacts of climate change threaten both public health and welfare.
Two small-to-middling positive points must be emphasized. First, the EPA is solidly on the side of science, ignoring the SwiftHacked email non-controversy: "There is nothing in the hacked e-mails that undermines the science upon which this decision is based," EPA chief Lisa Jackson stated today. And, for anyone who hasn't noticed other climate news elsewhere in the world, the announcement is clearly timed to underscore the Obama administration's commitment to address climate change regardless of whether the Senate acts on the Kerry-Boxer climate bill.
The bigger news is being trumpeted by the AP as "historic": Greenhouse gases harm humans. Humans are affected by severe heatwaves (the number of which is expected to increase as the planet heats), air quality, climate-sensitive diseases (e.g., mosquito-borne diseases), and aeroallergens (e.g., pollen). The elderly and poor are likely to suffer disproportionately, as are those vulnerable to more severe storms.
I'm happy that the EPA has taken this formal step in stating what's painfully obvious. I'm only disappointed that the process has been so long and politically snarled. Thus, I post this diary to warn progressives, again, not to believe the dangerous myth that EPA regulation alone is sufficient for the United States' share of climate change. We also need a climate bill.
The above chronology illustrates that the EPA is slow. With a motivated administration, a full year will pass between the time that the EPA first proposed doing anything about car mileage and the time that something actually will be done.
The EPA is also a litigation target. Already, the Chamber of Commerce and American Petroleum Institute are expressing disappointment; these groups express disappointment through litigation, not through psychotherapy. Cases take years to wend their way through courts, appellate courts, and -- in the case of Massachussets vs. United States, the Supreme Court. Judges who don't want to be labeled activist judges focus on facts of the cases before them, which means that there would be a lot of litigation with potentially inconsistent results.
EPA rules can also be subverted by an anti-environmentalist President, and lax regulations take just as long to undo as good regulations do to put in place. For example, the destruction of West Virginia mountains has its roots in a Bush administration interpretation of an EPA rule.
A great deal of sound and fury over the next few weeks will be on the "non-negotiable demand" by the BASIC countries (Brazil, South Africa, India, and China) that their carbon emissions reductions not be legally binding according to international law, but rather subject only to their own domestic laws. EPA regulation will come across to Copenhagen negotiators the same way -- not binding under international law. Senator John Kerry understands the links connecting today's EPA news with the climate bill and with the Copenhagen talks:
The message to Congress is crystal clear: get moving.
In short, I'm happy that the Obama administration is doing what it can with what it has -- regulatory authority -- when it can have the maximum impact. And I will fight for the final Kerry-Boxer bill to preserve the EPA's authority in regulating carbon pollution. Today's action should not be seen as a complete victory over the climate change deniers and skeptics. Don't be complacent.