align="left" alt="The New York Times" border="0" hspace="0" vspace="0">This copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers here or use the "Reprints" tool that appears next to any article. Visit www.nytreprints.com for samples and additional information. Order a reprint of this article now.
   |
E.P.A. Expected to Regulate Carbon Dioxide
E.P.A. Expected to Regulate Carbon Dioxide
WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to act for the first time to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that scientists blame for the warming of the planet, according to top Obama administration officials.
The decision, which most likely would play out in stages over a period of months, would have a profound impact on transportation, manufacturing costs and how utilities generate power. It could accelerate the progress of energy and climate change legislation in Congress and form a basis for the United States’ negotiating position at United Nations climate talks set for December in Copenhagen.
The environmental agency is under order from the Supreme Court to make a determination whether carbon dioxide is a pollutant that endangers public health and welfare, an order that the Bush administration essentially ignored despite near-unanimous belief among agency experts that research points inexorably to such a finding.
Lisa P. Jackson, the new E.P.A. administrator, said in an interview that she had asked her staff to review the latest scientific evidence and prepare the documentation for a so-called endangerment finding. Ms. Jackson said she had not decided to issue such a finding but she pointedly noted that the second anniversary of the Supreme Court decision, Massachusetts v. E.P.A., is April 2, and there is the wide expectation that she will act by then.
“We here know how momentous that decision could be,” Ms. Jackson said. “We have to lay out a road map.”
She took a first step on Tuesday when she said that the agency would reconsider a Bush administration decision not to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from new coal-burning power plants. In announcing the reversal, Ms. Jackson suggested that the E.P.A. was considering additional measures to regulate heat-trapping gases. The White House signaled that it fully supported Ms. Jackson’s approach, deferring to her to discuss the administration’s response to the Supreme Court case.
Ben LaBolt, a White House spokesman, also pointed to statements on the subject during the presidential campaign by Heather Zichal, a top adviser on environmental and energy issues.
Ms. Zichal, who is now deputy to Carol M. Browner, the White House coordinator for climate and energy policy, said last fall that the Bush White House had prevented the E.P.A. from making the endangerment finding “consistent with its obligations under the recent Supreme Court decision.” She also said that while Mr. Obama supported Congressional action on climate change, he was also committed to using the regulatory authority of the executive branch to reduce emissions that contribute to global warming.
Mr. LaBolt said the White House would not interfere with the agency’s decision-making process.
If the environmental agency determines that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant to be regulated under the Clean Air Act, it would set off one of the most extensive regulatory rule makings in history. Ms. Jackson knows that she would be stepping into a minefield of Congressional and industry opposition and said that she was trying to devise a program that allayed these worries.
“We are poised to be specific on what we regulate and on what schedule,” Ms. Jackson said. “We don’t want people to spin that into a doomsday scenario.”
Even some who favor an aggressive approach to climate change said they were wary of the agency’s asserting exclusive authority over carbon emissions. They say that the Clean Air Act, now more than 40 years old, was not designed to regulate ubiquitous substances like carbon dioxide. Using the law, they say, would capture carbon emissions from new facilities, but not existing ones, blunting its impact. They also believe that a broader approach that addresses all sectors of the economy and that is fully debated in Congress would be better than a regulatory approach that could drag through the courts for years.
The finding and proposed regulations would be issued in sequence, with ample opportunity for public comment and not in a sudden burst of regulatory muscle-flexing, Ms. Jackson said. The regulations would work in concert with any legislation and not supplant it, she added.
“What we are likely to see is an interplay of authorities, some new, some existing,” she said.
That is not likely to assuage critics, including many Democrats from states dependent on coal-generated electricity and manufacturing jobs, where such regulation could significantly increase costs. Representative John D. Dingell, the Michigan Democrat who has long championed the interests of the auto industry, said that the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions by the E.P.A. would set off a “glorious mess” that would resonate throughout the economy.
Senator John Barrasso, Republican of Wyoming, warned Ms. Jackson during her January confirmation hearing that she should not undercut Congress’s authority by using the agency’s regulatory power to address global warming. Mr. Barrasso called the use of the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon “a disaster waiting to happen.”
Many environmental advocates, however, said the E.P.A.’s action was long overdue, but added that it was only as a stopgap until Congress passed comprehensive climate change legislation.
“It’s politically necessary, scientifically necessary and legally necessary,” said David Bookbinder, chief climate counsel at the Sierra Club, a plaintiff in the Supreme Court case.
But, Mr. Bookbinder added, Congressional action is preferable to the agency’s acting on its own. “We are loudly advocating for tailor-made legislation as the best means of addressing carbon emissions,” he said. “Trying to address climate change via a series of rule makings from E.P.A. is a distant second best.”
As Ms. Jackson navigates the complexities of carbon regulation, she will be advised by Lisa Heinzerling, a former law professor at Georgetown who wrote the winning Supreme Court briefs in Massachusetts v. E.P.A. Ms. Heinzerling is now the agency’s lead attorney for global warming matters.
Jeffrey R. Holmstead, the former head of the agency’s office of air and radiation, said that a finding of endangerment from emissions of heat-trapping gases did not initiate immediate regulation but started a clock ticking on a process that typically took 18 months to two years.
“Potentially, it’s a huge mess, not only for E.P.A. but for state regulatory agencies, because the Clean Air Act is second only to the Internal Revenue Code in terms of complexity,” said Mr. Holmstead, now director of environmental strategies at the law firm Bracewell & Giuliani.
He said that under the clean air law any source emitting more than 250 tons of a declared pollutant would be subject to regulation, potentially including schools, hospitals, shopping centers, even bakeries, which has prompted some critics to call it the “Dunkin’ Donuts rule.”
But Mr. Bookbinder and other supporters say the regulations can be written to exempt these potential emitters. Ms. Jackson said that there was no timetable for issuing regulations governing carbon emissions and that her agency would not engage in “rash decision making.”
But she also said that the Supreme Court decision obliged her to act.
“It places E.P.A. square in the center of the discussion on climate and energy,” Ms. Jackson said. “People are waiting.”
Cheered in Canada, Obama treads lightly
OTTAWA – President Barack Obama courted warmer relations with America's snowy northern neighbor Thursday, declining to ask war-weary Canada to do more in Afghanistan, promising he won't allow a protectionist creep into U.S. trade policy and talking reassuringly around thorny energy issues.
Obama-happy crowds cheered Obama's seven-hour visit, his first outside U.S. borders as president, and he returned the compliment with a quick stop at an indoor market where he delighted shopkeepers by picking up pastries and souvenirs for his daughters.
"I love this country and think that we could not have a better friend and ally," Obama said as he appeared side-by-side with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper at gothic Parliament Hill. He later slipped slightly as he walked to his plane and joked that the weather reminded him of Chicago.
Harper in turn rolled out the red carpet for the new U.S. president. The Conservative leader had been close to President George W. Bush, personally and on policy. But he made clear with subtle jabs backward that he was casting his and his country's lot now with the vastly more popular Obama.
"As we all know, one of President Obama's big missions is to continue world leadership by the United States of America, but in a way that is more collaborative," Harper said, an apparent reference to Bush's go-it-alone diplomatic style.
Still, rhetorical niceties aside, there are some sharp differences between the U.S. and its largest trading partner and biggest supplier of oil. On several topics, where Obama came armed with reassurances, Harper offered mini-lectures, albeit gently delivered.
On the 7-year-old Afghanistan war, for instance, the Canadian leader said that NATO and U.S. forces fighting a resurgent Taliban insurgency are not "through our own efforts going to establish peace and security in Afghanistan." With Obama's administration undertaking a broad review of the U.S. strategy there, Harper suggested that any new policy "have the idea of an end date, of a transition to Afghan responsibility for security, and to greater Western partnership for economic development."
On Canada's massive oil-rich tar sands, Harper suggested that the kind of emissions regulations that environmentalists would like Obama to support would be unfair, making a comparison to the U.S. coal industry. "It's very hard to have a tough regulatory system here when we are competing with an unregulated economy south of the border," Harper said.
On trade, Obama stuck to his pledge to eventually seek changes in the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement to increase enforcement of labor and environmental standards — but said he intended to do so in a way "that is not disruptive to the extraordinarily important trade relationships that exist between the United States and Canada."
Harper said he might be willing to negotiate, but not by "opening the whole NAFTA and unraveling what is a very complex agreement."
He sounded a similar warning on a "Buy American" clause that Congress added to the $787 billion economic stimulus package. The provision's passage fits into a larger fear among free-trading Canadians that America is cultivating a protectionist streak as its economy tanks and hemorrhages jobs.
"We expect the United States to adhere to its international obligations," Harper said. "I can't emphasize how important it is that we do that."
Another point of contention is the post-Sept. 11 security enhancements required by the U.S. along the two country's borders that have made crossings more arduous. Harper suggested no one needed to teach Canada lessons on that score: "Not only have we, since 9/11, made significant investments in security and security along our border, the view of this government is unequivocal: Threats to the United States are threats to Canada."
Obama repeatedly took a non-confrontational approach.
On trade, he declared that he had told Harper: "I want to grow trade and not contract it."
On Afghanistan, Obama said unprompted that he had not asked the prime minister for any more Canadian commitments. Just a handful of nations, including Canada, are doing the heavy lifting there by fighting in the country's dangerous southern and eastern provinces. Canada, which has lost more than 100 people in Afghanistan, is withdrawing its 2,500 combat forces out of the volatile south by 2011.
"We just wanted to make sure that we were saying thank you," Obama said.
The president announced earlier this week that he is sending 17,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan to augment the 33,000 already there. It was just over half the increase that U.S. commanders have requested, and Obama left the door open to additional increases once the strategy review is finished in late March.
On the oil sands issue, Obama probably scored points with his hosts by linking the environmental problems of the Canadian industry with those in the U.S. coal industry.
Industry officials estimate the northern Alberta sands could yield as much as 175 billion barrels of oil, making Canada second only to Saudi Arabia in crude oil reserves. But the extraction process produces a high amount of the greenhouse gases blamed for climate change. Environmental groups want Obama to resist Harper's efforts to exempt them from regulation.
Obama instead focused on the idea of developing carbon capture and storage to help turn the sands into a clean source of power, a largely unproven and not yet cost-effective technology that would bury harmful emissions underground.
The topic was the only one to produce an announcement, though a minor one. The leaders said they had decided to begin a new clean-energy dialogue to advance carbon-reduction technologies and the development of a modern electric grid.
Presidents send signals with their choices of their maiden international trips, and by coming here Obama meant to show that energy and Afghanistan are at the top of his list.
But with the U.S. economy in free fall, he chose not to make a long visit, not even staying for dinner.
The Canadian public didn't seem to care, with many spending hours on buses to come to the snowy capital in hopes of just a glimpse. The crowd of many hundreds that had started gathering at 4 a.m. in the square outside Parliament erupted in a deafening cheer when the U.S. leader waved for a moment from behind a partition before disappearing inside with Harper. Along his motorcade route, a woman held up a "Yes We Canada" sign, a playful reference to Obama's campaign motto.
There was one small Obama slip. During his joint appearance with Harper, Obama started out by remarking his great pleasure at being in what he clearly started to say was "Iowa." He quickly corrected himself to say "Ottawa."
The day afforded Obama his first experience with many of the pomp-filled ingredients of a presidential journey abroad.
With a light snow falling at the airport, a double line of Royal Canadian Mounted Police in their bright red coats stood at attention. Obama was greeted by the representative of Britain's Queen Elizabeth II, Michaelle Jean, who took him inside the terminal for a brief discussion. Obama later met in the same room at the end of his visit with Liberal opposition leader Michael Ignatieff. Throughout his visit, American flags fluttered alongside Canadian ones.
___
Associated Press writers Rob Gillies and Ben Feller contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий