The View from Washington - Global Climate Change Debate
Today I am very pleased to turn this blog over to Stephanie Childs, Vice President of Government Affairs at Avaya. This is the first guest post within the Sustainability section of the Avaya blog and it is my hope and intention that this is the first of many, both from Stephanie and from other areas of Avaya's operations.
Stephanie has a great perch in Washington DC to monitor and assess the many green/sustainability legislation and regulations. I want to extend my thanks to Stephanie for sharing her insight and knowledge with us here on the blog.
Global Climate Change Debate
Stephanie Childs
From the outside looking in, there does not seem to be much happening in Washington these days in terms of getting the US to commit to hard goals around reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). The House passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 last June, which would establish a cap-and-trade system for GHG and set goals for reducing such emissions from certain covered sources by 83% of 2005 levels by 2050. The Senate, on the other hand, has declined to act.
Despite the seeming stalemate, there is quite a bit of posturing going on behind the scenes, with the Environmental Protection Agency moving towards crafting regulations to control emissions should the Congress fail to act.
Two leading Democrats in the US House of Representatives recently introduced a resolution to block the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. House Agriculture Chairman Collin Peterson (D-MN) and Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) voted last summer to pass the House climate change bill, but with action on a Senate bill stalled, the two sided with industry and trade groups that fear the EPA will move ahead with more stringent regulations. Even if it were to pass both chambers of Congress, a resolution disapproving EPA regulation would almost certainly meet with a presidential veto. But it would also be an awkward rebuke to President Obama on one of his biggest initiatives.
In December, the EPA issued a finding that greenhouse gases qualify as dangerous pollutants under the Clean Air Act, triggering a requirement that the agency begin moving to regulate carbon emissions as early as this month.
The EPA finding was a response to a 2007 Supreme Court decision that described greenhouse gases as pollutants and directed the agency to determine whether they threaten the public.
The administration says it would prefer to regulate global warming gases through legislation, but it has used the threat of EPA regulation to press lawmakers to act. So far, the threat of EPA regulation has failed to move senators closer to a climate deal, but it has sparked a backlash among lawmakers and industry.
Numerous industry organizations have filed lawsuits challenging the EPA's finding and last week, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson has responded to the pressure, announcing that she would delay implementation of new regulations until 2011 and would phase in the new pollution rules through 2016.
Let the games begin...
Posted 4 Mar 2010 at 03:18 PM