COMMENTARY agency’s responsibility under the Act to decide whether greenhouse gases are detrimental to human health and to regulate accordingly. In December 2009, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson and her agency determined that these gases are harmful to humans and planned to limit the sources of their emission. Defending her conclusion last month in front of a hostile House Energy and Commerce Committee, she said, “Scientists at the thirteen federal agencies that make up the US Global Change Research Program have reported that climate change, due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases, poses significant risks to the well-being of the American public.” These dangers include rising sea levels that threaten coastal American communities, and a higher incidence of extreme weather events spanning from severe drought, to hurricanes, blizzards and flooding. Warmer average temperatures will encourage the spread of disease-causing pathogens and destructive invasive species usually killed off by colder weather. All citizens will experience higher food prices as the reliability and yield of yearly harvests decreases. Furthermore, countless recreation and leisure locations will be lost to ecological destruction. These effects will be especially harmful in large coastal cities and surrounding areas—the very communities experiencing the greatest population growth in the country today. Yet, Republicans on the committee denied the legality and practicality of regulating carbon emissions. Representative John Sullivan (R-OK) contended, “This hearing is not about science. It’s about the destructive economic impacts of the EPA trying to use the Clean Air Act for something it was never designed to do: regulate greenhouse gases.” Regrettably, Representative Sullivan completely ignored the Supreme Court’s
Initial estimate of compliance cost ($420,000)
Revised cost of compliance after public input ($2,200)
0
100,000
Apart from the bill’s brainless ignorance of accepted climate science, it would also cost the American public trillions of dollars more than the common-sense regulation of greenhouse gases that the EPA is trying to instate. In the same statement before the Energy and Commerce Committee, Ms. Jackson went on to say that by 2020, the benefits of the Clean Air Act, begun in 1990, “are projected to exceed the costs by a factor of more than 30 to 1.” It’s painfully obvious that allowing the EPA to do its job would provide substantially greater benefits to society than the costs incurred. What’s more, the EPA’s regulations have been exceedingly accommodating to business, to a greater extent than many environmentalists can comfortably stomach. In
Representative Fred Upton (R-MI), Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committe, has proposed a bill that, in its own words, would “repeal” the scientific findings on climate change. ruling and its implications. According to the Supreme Court, the Clean Air Act is intended to regulate air pollution harmful to human health. The EPA, following the recommendations of the nation’s leading scientific societies and federal agencies, determined that greenhouse gases fit the mold of harmful pollution. Therefore, the agency is compelled to regulate greenhouse gases to protect citizens’ health and quality of life. Such action would be, by definition, exactly what the Clean Air Act is supposed to do. Setting aside questions of legality, the EPA’s responsible and obvious finding on greenhouse gases is also under attack from proposed legislation in Congress. Representative Fred Upton (R-MI), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, has proposed a bill that, in its own words, would “repeal” the scientific findings on climate change.
6
the words of Ms. Jackson, “Although the EPA has not yet published proposed standards [for greenhouse gases], I plan to base them on commercially available technologies with proven track records. The standards will reflect careful consideration of costs and incorporate as much compliance flexibility as possible.” As displayed in the EPA’s compromise over toxic emissions, the agency is interested not only in protecting human health and well-being, but also in protecting businesses from prohibitive costs and job losses as well. Both their rhetoric and their actions have backed up this stance. nfortunately, none of these conU cerns has been enough for conservatives in Congress. They have continued
to ignore the clear costs of non-regulation and wage war on the EPA—even as the agency is lenient on businesses that emit
Counterpoint
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000 Graph by Eric Pilch
A RADICAL SHIFT in compliance costs due to small
adjustments in the regulations allowed the EPA to achieve nearly the same environmental benefits. A similar proccess could be applied to carbon emissions standards.
pollutants en masse. Why? The answer is simple. Those affected most by the consequences of non-regulation are ill equipped to escape them. These aren’t the voters who put Republicans back in control of the House last year, and the members of Congress know it. As with lethal emissions of lead and mercury, the wealthy are able to escape the impact of global climate change, both in America and abroad. The middle and lower classes will not be so lucky. These constituencies don’t have the financial clout that would allow them to buy their way into government protection from externalities, like large business interests buy their way out of being responsible for them. And unless emissions are regulated, the poor will suffer from health and environmental problems they did very little to produce themselves. There is no better example of a time when the government is obligated to step in on behalf of its citizens. Conservatives would abdicate this responsibility to satiate big business interests. It has been shown time and time again through the legal and legislative wrangling over the proposed regulations that Republicans would prefer to spare their base and corporate donors of a small increase in environmental regulation, rather than save all of society billions of dollars, prevent countless deaths due to environmental contaminants, and improve the health and well-being of the entire populace. The majority of the public has little recourse from the effects of industrial contaminants and greenhouse gasses in the face of government inaction. The high minded in government are doing their best to protect the public. Let’s hope these legislators and officials choose to do right by all their citizens and recognize the overwhelming costs of environmental non-regulation.
APRIL 2011