The Environmental Protection Agency has sent its formal finding that greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, to the White House for review, Reuters reports. It's a necessary step on the road to full regulation. And it may be Chicago-style hardball politics to ensure that the climate bill doesn't get stuck in the Senate.
The White House's Office of Management and Budget usually coordinates reviews when regulations could impose more than $100 million in annual costs on society, present controversial legal or policy issues, or require multi-agency input. The EPA's final finding, if it follows the agency's earlier assessment and is approved by the OMB, would allow the EPA to issue rules later to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, even if Congress fails to pass legislation to cut U.S. emissions of the heat-trapping gases that contribute to global warming. Formally, OMB has 90 days in which to act, but Lisa Jackson of the EPA has asked for a more expedited review -- again, possibly as a sign of hardball politics. (Photo credit: Washington State Historical Society via Grist.)
EPA action is not a full substitute for the climate bill. Briefly, the EPA is slow, a ripe litigation target, politically perilous for Obama, can easily be subverted by an anti-environmental President, and doesn't assure other countries that the United States can reduce carbon emissions. (People needing more convincing of these points can read Everything you always wanted to know about EPA greenhouse gas regulations, but were afraid to ask, with fluffy bunny pictures; The dangerous myth that the EPA's endangerment finding can somehow stop dangerous warming if the climate bill dies, or my diary on alphabet soup.) Which is not to say that Democrats should rush to bargain away the EPA's ability to regulate carbon.
Senators on both sides of the aisle see EPA regulation as less desireable than a comprehensive climate bill. Last week, the prospects for a good climate bill had many spins on the hyperpartisan nature of the Environment & Public Works committee vote (all Republicans boycotting). The EPA action might be a coincidence. However, I've previously diaried that significant Congressional news on the climate bill tends to be quickly followed by EPA (or other executive branch) actions.
The climate bill is now halfway through the Senate; of the six committees that have jurisdiction over the Kerry-Boxer bill, the bill has cleared the easiest three. The Foreign Relations committee won't hold hearings. Energy & Natural Resources passed its section last summer. And even though the Republicans on the Environment & Public Works committee boycotted the vote, the E&PW committee is done. Finance is holding its first hearing tomorrow, and getting the bill through Baucus' committee will actually be easier than Agriculture (Lincoln wants to delay until after financial reform is done) and Commerce (Rockefeller wants to delay until 2011, which makes perfect sense given that we're facing a planetary emergency). Reluctant Democratic Senators can consider the EPA's announcement a friendly reminder. Reluctant Republican Senators would do well to heed the words of Lindsey Graham, who opined in the Charleston Post & Courier:
EPA regulation of carbon is the worst possible scenario. The EPA will destroy jobs and contain no new provisions for expanded nuclear energy or offshore drilling.
Regardless of whether you view climate change as a real threat or some grand hoax, carbon will eventually be regulated -- either through congressional action or by the EPA.
In other words: Lisa just told Blanche and Jay, "If you want to be relevant, get out your calendars and schedule something within the next 90 days or thereabouts."