Late Friday afternoon, the US Chamber of Commerce filed a petition with a federal appellate court to review the Environmental Protection Agency's decision to regulate greenhouse gases on grounds that the EPA used a flawed rulemaking process. The Competitive Enterprise Institute filed a separate petition claiming that the science used by the EPA is flawed. Lawsuits will surely follow.
The Chamber's press release claims that it wants to reduce greenhouse gases, but using the EPA's endangerment finding is the wrong way. "The right way is through bipartisan legislation that promotes new technologies, emphasizes efficiency, ensures affordable energy for families and businesses, and defends American jobs while returning our economy to prosperity." This statement is remarkably similar to statements issued by everyone in the Obama administration, beginning with the President and EPA director Lisa Jackson, although a cynic might note that Obama really wants a bipartisan climate bill while the Chamber merely wants to talk about one. In any case, none of them have bought into the liberal myth that EPA regulation can substitute for a climate bill. Why not?
EPA regulation is necesssary, but not sufficient, to cap carbon. EPA has the regulatory authority, but its decisions will be less hated if accompanied by a climate bill. Briefy, the EPA is slow (if you really want to learn more, David Roberts at Grist felt the need to add fluffy bunny photos just to keep readers' interest at the definitive Everything you always wanted to know about EPA greenhouse gas regulations, but were afraid to ask); a litigation target, leading to inconsistent judicial rulings (EPA enforcement will be as loophole-ridden as a climate bill, although for different reasons); subject to political attacks such as Senator Lisa Murkowski's (R-Baked Alaska); rulemaking can be subverted by a Republican president; and won't impress other countries at the December 2010 international climate meeting in Cancun. Still not convinced that EPA action alone can save the climate? Don't listen to this blogger, and instead read Joe Romm's The Dangerous Myth that the EPA's Endangerment Finding Can Somehow Stop Dangerous Warming if the Climate Bill Dies.
The actions by the Chamber and CEI appear part of a Grand Kabuki stylized ritual. The forces of King Coal and Big Oil are attempting to destroy any hope of a Plan B, the EPA, from multiple angles -- litigation, legislation, and otherwise. Their actions will reach a crescendo in March, as senators Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman unveil a bill heavy on nuclear power, offshore drilling, and the chimera of clean coal. As the public becomes convinced that the EPA shouldn't be regulating greenhouse gases at all, the debate will be framed between a weak climate bill, in which EPA authority is negotiated away, and no climate bill at all.
(x-posted at The Seminal)