In the News

There’s some question as to how far the Environmental Protection Agency’s recent “endangerment” finding with regard to climate pollution allows the agency to go in terms of protecting the climate without further enabling legislation. Over at Grist, Michael Livermore points to a new report from the Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU Law School that argues the EPA can go far indeed—all the way to implementing a full-bore nationwide cap and trade system.

The new Congress has been making up for lost time on climate change. Senators and Representatives have been rushing to get a cap-and-something passed this year. At the same time there are fears that it may be impossible to build a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate for a good climate bill, leaving greens with two options: either accept a bad bill, or accept inaction.

So just out from NYU yesterday: a roadmap for regulating four of the six GHGs under the CAA as currently structured (assuming the finding is finalized as planned). The NYU report outlines (1) the legal arguments that the CAA fully authorizes EPA to create a “cap-and-trade” program for the six major GHGs, (2) the way that such a program could operate at or near an “economy wide” scale, and finally (3) that standard cost/benefit analyses would support EPA moving forward with such a program quickly.

U.S. EPA could craft rules on its own that closely emulate the economywide carbon trading plan Congress is now considering, according to a legal analysis by the Institute for Policy Integrity released today. Parsing the “labyrinth structure” and language of the Clean Air Act, the report examined whether the agency could auction greenhouse gas emissions permits under a cap-and-trade program without authorization from Congress.

If Congress doesn’t act, the EPA still can regulate. This week, the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law will release a report on how far the EPA could go with regulations. The answer: the agency could impose cap-and-trade.

If Congress doesn’t act, the EPA still can regulate. This week, the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law will release a report on how far the EPA could go with regulations. The answer: the agency could impose cap-and-trade.

On the second anniversary of the Supreme Court’s greenhouse gas decision, it is refreshing and exhilarating to see so much movement from Washington towards reducing our carbon emissions. After the endless stalling by the last President, our government officials are right to be rushing to find a solution now. But unless that solution keeps lower and middle class Americans whole, we fear it will be unfair, unpopular and ultimately, short-lived.

Cap and trade may not be dead, but it now looks unlikely that Congress will pursue emissions regulations this year, which no doubt frustrates Michael Livermore, who makes the case for acting quickly over at TNR’s The Vine.

Good news America: we do not have to choose between economic growth and climate stability. In his budget blueprint, President Obama has proposed a climate change policy that cleans up our environment, spurs investment that will create millions of jobs, and protects consumers from the rate increases that will come from making this transition to cleaner energy. With this plan, there is no need to wait for an economic recovery.

According to various press reports, the Obama administration and Congress may decide not to push a cap on carbon emissions through this year’s budget reconciliation process…But one thing to note here is that the longer Congress waits on putting a cap in place, the more we actually hinder the ability of our economy to prepare for an inevitable carbon-constrained future.