EPA climate regulations
Eric Biber posted last week about the proposal from several heavyweight Republicans for a carbon tax, outlined in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. Much has been said about the merits and problems of a carbon tax, including on this blog, so I will try not to repeat those points here. However, I wanted to expand …CONTINUE READING
The public continues to support a federal action to address climate change.
A poll released last month probed American attitudes toward climate change. The poll was released after the Obama Administration issued its proposed rules for existing power plants to loud cries of protest from industry. The poll was conducted by Stanford University and Resources for the Future, a highly regarded think tank. At the time, the …CONTINUE READING
EPA is right to include climate impacts on foreign countries in its cost-benefit analysis of regulations.
When a regulation benefits people outside the U.S., should those benefits be counted? Or should a cost-benefit analysis include only positive and negative domestic impacts? As a recent paper by Ted Gayer and Kip Viscusi highlights, EPA has been counting the benefits of restricting carbon emissions for the entire world, not just the U.S. …CONTINUE READING
EPA has structured the rules to protect against legal challenges.
Megan has done a great job of explaining the background of the rules and summarizing the proposal in her blog posts. I just wanted to add a quick note about how EPA has structured its rules in light of possible legal challenges. The fundamental issue facing EPA is how to define the “best system” for reducing …CONTINUE READING
The language of the statute relating to next week’s argument is clear — but there’s a fly in the ointment.
The Supreme Court will be hearing argument next week in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA. It’s basically a very simple statutory interpretation case, except for two things. First, it’s about climate change, and nothing about climate change ever seems to be simple and straightforward. Second, although the language of the statute, prior Supreme Court precedent, …CONTINUE READING
Six months ago, the D.C. Circuit upheld EPA’s finding that greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare, triggering coverage under the Clean Air Act. Today, the full court denied rehearing to the three-judge panel’s decision. There were only two dissents, which obviously were hoping to set the stage for a cert. petition to the Supreme …CONTINUE READING
I’ve just spent some time reading the initial briefs in the D.C. Circuit on the endangerment issue. They strike me as much more political documents than legal ones. A brief recap for those who haven’t been following the legal side of the climate issue. After the Bush Administration decided not to regulate greenhouse gases under …CONTINUE READING
In a new white paper by the Center for Progressive Reform (CPR), Amy Sinden and I try to clear up some misconceptions about climate change and the Clean Air Act. Critics of EPA maintain that the Clean Air Act is somehow an inappropriate tool to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and that EPA should be …CONTINUE READING
The Times as a forceful editorial today about pending legislative efforts to block EPA’s climate regulations and other air pollution regulations: Congress’s failure to enact a climate bill means that the E.P.A.’s authority to regulate these gases — an authority conferred by a landmark Supreme Court decision in 2007 — is, for now, the only …CONTINUE READING
The Republican Party is not going to sit still as EPA regulates greenhouse gas emissions. Oh yes, they and their assorted constituencies will file lawsuits, but there is a more direct way for them to go: simply attach a rider to a free-standing EPA appropriations bill forbidding it to spend any funds on regulating greenhouse gas emissions. …CONTINUE READING