In the News

President Obama will arrive in Copenhagen tomorrow to weigh in on the talks over a global climate treaty. But will he and his envoys be “hemmed in” by Congress, as John Kerry suggested on Thursday? After all, even if the United States does agree to an international climate treaty, many observers have argued that the treaty would still need 67 votes in the Senate for ratification. And, given how difficult it’s proving just to round up 60 votes for a climate bill, the odds of 67 look dim. So are there any other options available? Actually, yes.

How far will the EPA go in regulating these gases, including carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels? In passing the Clean Air Act in 1972, congress gave the EPA broad discretion to follow the science. In a report this year, the Institute for Policy Integrity at the NYU School of Law found that the EPA can go very far, up to imposing a cap-and-trade system, like the one Congress is considering.

After that, there are also a couple of other options the EPA could pursue. It could, as Michael A. Livermore has argued, work with states to create a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases, which would, in theory, give polluters more flexibility to cut their emissions (rather than having every facility have to conform to the same rigid set of rules).

Sens. Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Collins (D-Ill.) have introduced a welcome addition to the debate over climate change legislation in the Senate. Their bill, with its strong architecture, and simple, fair, and transparent emissions reduction, can help restart the momentum to agree to climate change legislation early next year before the prospect of mid-term elections shuts down the legislative process.

Or the EPA could provide those market-based approaches itself. Michael Livermore at the NYU Law School notes over at TNR’s The Vine that the EPA has the authority to create its own cap-and-trade plan under the Clean Air Act. (Even under legislation, the EPA would have to run the thing anyway.)

International negotiators and pundits had been pinning their hopes for success in Copenhagen on the U.S. Congress—when it became clear that there’d be no bill this year, excitement flagged and the claws came out. But EPA’s greenhouse gas finding will most certainly help President Obama in his negotiations at the climate talks. The envoys from other nations should read the full meaning of this action: it is now officially the law of the land in America that greenhouse gases are a danger to public health.

Many U.S. businesses will likely see yesterday’s endangerment finding from the EPA as a call to the congressional negotiating table on a climate bill. That’s because the option for business-as-usual is now dead—given that greenhouse gases are now subject to the Clean Air Act, companies will have to reduce emissions one way or another.

Recently, however, New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity released a groundbreaking survey of top US economists revealing that there is a surprisingly high level of agreement among economists on the dangers of climate change as well as an overwhelming consensus that curbing emissions will help, not hurt, the economy.

The Kyoto Protocol has taken criticism from all sides over the years. But in fairness, it is important to recognize that, according to almost any estimate, the treaty has resulted in surpassed targets in some nations, significant emissions reductions even in nations that may miss their targets, and a marked improvement over business-as-usual had there been no treaty. Whether nations ratified the treaty or abstained, all have been the beneficiaries of global benefits these reductions have generated.

International climate change negotiations have centered on which countries are willing to pay, how much, and when. Putting aside bickering over who will pick up the tab, the most central question that we need to ask is: What are we willing to pay to avoid serious harm to our children and grandchildren?

Some economists believe the answer is to “discount” the effects of climate change depending on how far in the future they fall. In effect, the further out in time something happens, the less important it is.