Coalition of states claims climate change is still up in the air

Well, if U.S. President Barack Obama has learned anything in his first year in office, it's that there's no way to please everybody, no matter what. So, news from Washington today that 12 states had joined lawsuits seeking to block the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions shouldn't surprise anyone. Lawsuits are one of the major ways that public policy gets done, especially when business interests are involved. Florida, Indiana, South Carolina and nine other states asked the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., on Thursday to block the EPA from issuing rules to control such emissions, according to the Reuters international news service. Their petitions join three filed earlier this year by Virginia, Texas and Alabama, Reuters said. The suits ask the EPA to reopen hearings on an "endangerment finding" it issued last year that greenhouse emissions are dangerous to people. The April finding, which became final in June, enabled the EPA to begin regulating greenhouse emissions under the Clean Air Act. Regulations expected to be issued shortly would require cars and light trucks to increase their energy efficiency. "If EPA doesn't reopen the hearings we will move forward to try to stop them from regulating greenhouse gases," said Brian Gottstein of the Virginia Attorney General's office, Reuters said. The states complain that the new rules are too heavily based on climate change reports from the United Nations that have been criticized for exaggerating some data. But 16 other states have petitioned to join the case in support of the EPA. The new rules are consistent with an Obama administration pledge to use regulations to curtail emissions if Congress does not pass a climate bill, which has been stalled in the legislature, Reuters said.

U.S. expects expensive new pollution standards to bring major health benefits

New pollution regulations proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency could impose costly requirements on businesses and local governments but result in measurable health benefits to millions. The new standards proposed Thursday by the Obama administration will, assuming implementation, replace Bush administration-promulgated standards that were challenged as too weak by environmentalists and being reviewed by the courts, according to the New York Times. “E.P.A. is stepping up to protect Americans from one of the most persistent and widespread pollutants we face,” said EPA chief Lisa Jackson, an Obama appointee. “Smog in the air we breathe poses a very serious health threat, especially to children and individuals suffering from asthma and lung disease. It dirties our air, clouds our cities and drives up our health care costs across the country.” The new rules would limit levels of ground-level ozone, or smog, to between 0.6 and 0.7 parts per million over the next two decades, and would cost polluting industries as much as $90 billion a year to implement. The Bush administration proposed a 0.75 ppm limit. But the EPA said benefits to human health from the lower limits would be as much as $100 billion a year in reduced medical costs. The agency said as many as 12,000 premature deaths from heart or lung disease could be avoided, as well as thousands of cases of bronchitis, asthma and non-fatal heart attacks. “This is exactly what states and localities have advocated for 30 years,” said S. William Becker of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, the Times said. “The benefits will likely trump the costs many times over.” But what would environmental regulation be without industry opposition to rules that seem unquestionably beneficial? The American Petroleum Institute, which represents oil companies, issued a statement claiming the benefits were likely overstated and did not justify the extra burden on industry. It called the proposal "an obvious politicization of the air quality standard setting process" that would negatively impact future fuel development, the Times said.

EPA announcement reminds everyone there's a new sheriff

Word that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency plans to use regulations to force power plants and factories to lower greenhouse gas emissions if Congress is unable to agree new legislation to combat global warming should remind everyone that things have changed at the top of the U.S. government. Where a year ago the White House might have looked the other way as major industrial companies, many of them big campaign contributors, stalled legislation in Congress or just ignored their legal and moral obligations to protect the environment, new president Barack Obama has authorized the EPA to restrict greenhouse gas emissions through regulation, according to the New York Times. “We are not going to continue with business as usual,” EPA Administration Lisa Jackson, an Obama appointee, said Wednesday in a conference call with reporters. “We have the tools and the technology to move forward today, and we are using them.” New rules proposed by EPA would require the 400 largest power plants, including those being built or undergoing extensive renovations, to prove that they were applying the best technology for reducing emissions, the Times said. The new rules, which Jackson said apply only to facilities that emit more than 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide annually, would affect plants that are responsible for nearly 70 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. They would not, she said, apply to "every cow and Dunkin' Donuts" in the country, the Times said. The Times also said the proposal was timed to coincide with the introduction of global warming and energy legislation by Democratic senators John Kerry of Massachusets and Barbara Boxer of California, legislation that may prove impossible to pass this year. Obama prefers a legislative approach and is committed to approval of a climate bill this year. But industry groups attacked the EPA proposal, saying it violates the Clean Air Act, and suggesting the regulations could face lengthy court challenges. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers have already threatened to sue, the Times said. Other industry groups are working with Congress on a climate bill that would substitute a so-called cap-and-trade system, under which polluters would buy and sell credits, for the EPA regulations.

New administration frees scientists from doghouse

The significance of Friday's announcement that U.S. environmental regulators have officially determined that air pollutants blamed for global warming pose significant health hazards to people is not only that emissions can be regulated, but that government officials are again listening to scientists. Finally, a scientific approach to problems -- far superior to the 'faith-based' approach of President Barak Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush. The Environmental Protection Agency, which made the announcement, did not just find out about heat-trapping gases -- they've understood that for years, as have many of us. But irresponsible leaders of the last administration obviously muzzled regulators to reward corporate campaign contributors who will have to pay for compliance with new regulations. "This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations," EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said in a news release, according to Cable News Network (CNN). "The science clearly shows that concentrations of these gases are at unprecedented levels as a result of human emissions, and these high levels are very likely the cause of the increase in average temperatures and other changes in our climate." Jackson was nominated by Obama and confirmed by Congress in January. Reuters said environmentalists applauded the EPA announcement. "Global warming threatens our health, our economy, and our children's prosperity," said Vickie Patton, deputy general counsel at the Environmental Defense Fund. "EPA's action is a wake-up call for national policy solutions that secure our economic and environmental future." But Republicans in Congress condemned the decision, saying it would lead to an increased in government regulations. "Today's action by the EPA is the beginning of a regulatory barrage that will destroy jobs, raise energy prices for consumers and undermine America's global competitiveness," said Sen. James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.