Major enviro groups cool on calls for 'immediate action' on CO2 emissions

Rachel Oswald Published: Thursday March 12, 2009
Print This  Email This

Although a few climate change advocates have called for President Obama to take immediate action in addressing greenhouse gas emissions by ordering the EPA to pass regulations on it, some of the biggest climate change groups would rather have Congress address the issue first.

The Christian Science Monitor wrote an editorial on Tuesday highly critical of the Executive Branch’s lack of action on carbon emission regulations by arguing that the Supreme Court decision authorizing the EPA to limit carbon dioxide emissions gives President Obama the authority to take immediate action.

“Obama could act immediately to meet IPCC targets without waiting for Congress,” writes The Monitor. “With the stroke of a pen, the Environmental Protection Agency could set rules on all emissions of carbon dioxide. That would fulfill a 2007 Supreme Court decision that ordered the EPA to decide whether CO2 is an endangering pollutant under the Clean Air Act and, if so, begin to regulate it.”

In January, Oregon School of Law Professor Mary Wood and Oregon Fellow Tim Ream sounded the same call for immediate action in a piece for straight.com.

“Obama needs to regulate carbon immediately to lay the necessary groundwork for international climate negotiations that will be held in Denmark next December,” the two wrote. “Citizens worldwide must make clear to President Obama that regulating carbon is not a matter of political discretion, as his predecessor conceived it, but a firm trust obligation. He can, and must exercise that obligation immediately, without waiting for Congress, using the fullest extent of regulatory tools he already has at hand.”

However this sentiment is not shared by some of the most-well known groups arguing for carbon emissions reform. They would rather Congress address GHG emissions through comprehensive legislation, though those interviewed stressed the importance of EPA efforts as well.

“It is our preference to have Congress legislate a national approach and I think that sentiment is shared by most people in the environmental community and in the business community as well,” said Tony Kreindler, media director for climate for the Environmental Defense Fund in an interview with Raw Story. “That said if Congress is unable or can’t act quickly enough, the EPA does have an obligation under the Supreme Court [ruling] to act.”

Kreindler said he doesn’t think the climate change community will have to wait very long for Congress to act, adding that there have been “some very clear signals” from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that legislation authorizing a cap-and-trade system for GHGs will be introduced to committee by Memorial Day.

“I think we’re going to see similar action in the Senate,” Kreindler said, adding “The science compels that we do something very soon. If the bill cannot be achieved the EPA does have an obligation to go forward.”

David Willett, national press secretary for the Sierra Club, said to Raw Story his group does not have a favorite approach to addressing carbon emissions but supports both approaches being worked in tandem together.

“We aren’t really choosing. We are pursuing both,” he said, adding that the EPA should take every opportunity to work on regulating GHGs. “We’re definitely supportive of a two-pronged approach with both the Executive Branch and Congress working on this.”

He added that due to the deliberative nature of the EPA regulatory process, EPA action will take “some time.” Willett said EPA’s decision to hear arguments from California asking for a waiver to allow the state to set stronger tailpipe emissions standards, is a good start.

Requests for comment by the White House on the calls for immediate action put forth by The Monitor editorial were not returned.

However this late February analysis by The New York Times provides some good insight into where Obama’s mind is in the debate over EPA vs. Congressional action on climate change.

“The president continues to believe the best path forward is through legislation, rather than through sort of the weaving together the various authorities of the Clean Air Act, which may or may not end in a cap-and-trade program," said Obama’s climate change czar, Carol Browner in remarks reported by The Times. "You can get the clearest instruction by passing legislation."

On Tuesday the EPA took further action in its efforts to build the infrastructure necessary for strong GHG regulations with a proposal, under the authority of the Clean Air Act, to form the first national comprehensive system for reporting emissions of GHGs by major domestic producers.

“Our efforts to confront climate change must be guided by the best possible information,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson in a released statement. “Through this new reporting, we will have comprehensive and accurate data about the production of greenhouse gases. This is a critical step toward helping us better protect our health and environment – all without placing an onerous burden on our nation’s small businesses.”

According to the EPA, approximately 13,000 facilities, accounting for about 85 percent to 90 percent of GHGs, would be covered under the proposal. The large majority of small businesses would not be required to report their emissions because their emissions would fall below the qualifying threshold.

Reporting of emissions would begin at the start of 2010. EPA is estimating that the private sector costs of complying with the reporting requirements would be $160 million in the first year.