Environmental Protection Agency
June 21, 2010
Five years ago, South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham joined a handful of senators traveling to the Yukon territory to view firsthand the effects of climate change. Witnessing melting ice caps and permafrost, and Inuit communities struggling to cope with a transforming environment, Graham was “moved.” “Climate change is different when you come here, because you see the faces of people experiencing it,” he said. In the following years, he asserted that “climate change is real” and promoted a cap-and-trade bill in the Senate. Today, Graham is sprinting in the other direction.
All Cost, No Benefit Is No Way To Do An Analysis
June 17, 2010
According to an EPA analysis released Monday, the Kerry-Lieberman climate bill—also known as the American Power Act—would cost $146 per year per household. The only catch? The EPA didn't assess the benefits of the bill, particularly the fact that it's a necessary step for averting the worst effects of climate change. And that's unfortunate, because when you look at what the $146 per year would buy us, it's a pretty good deal. There will be costs to any carbon pricing mechanism.
It's hard to disagree with Ezra Klein about this, in reaction to Obama's oil-spill address last night: I'm just not sure how you do a response to climate change if you can't really say the words "climate change." And that's where we are right now: The actual problem we're trying to solve is politically, if not scientifically, controversial.
How Far Will Obama Push?
June 14, 2010
Tomorrow Obama will give a big primetime speech about the BP oil disaster, and he's expected to call for some sort of energy bill from Congress. But how far is he going to push? The New York Times reports that the administration is reining in its goals: President Obama has said that the time has come to put a price on carbon dioxide pollution and vowed to find the votes for it this year.
EPA Can Still Regulate CO2 (For Now)
June 10, 2010
So it looks like Lisa Murkowski's resolution to block the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases got shot down. The final vote was 47 to 53, with every Republican and six Dems voting in favor, including Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Evan Bayh, Mark Pryor, and Jay Rockefeller. The line from most of these folks is that they want Congress, rather than the EPA, to take the lead on global warming. Trouble is, many of them won't vote for a climate bill, either.
Murkowski's Showdown With The EPA
June 10, 2010
The Hill's Alex Bolton has a good preview of the Senate vote today on Lisa Murkowski's EPA resolution. This resolution, recall, would overturn the EPA's finding that greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare. Not only would that stop the agency from cracking down on new coal plants and other greenhouse-gas emitters, but it would also scrap the new fuel-economy standards for cars and light trucks that the Obama administration recently put in place.
Sharron Angle And Party Suicide
June 09, 2010
It's not very often you see a political party shoot itself in the foot by nominating an obviously terrible candidate when better alternatives are available. One exception is the Illinois Democrats, who turned what should be a safe seat into a competitive one by nominating Alex Giannoulias, whose family bank went under, for Senate. (Giannoulias hilariously said he would answer questions about the bank only after the primary, and Democratic voters even more hilariously decided to nominate him anyway.) But the nomination of Republican Sharron Angle for Senate in Nevada stands on its own.
An Energy Bill's Coming In July. But What Kind?
June 07, 2010
Last Friday, Harry Reid sent a letter to various Senate committee chairmen telling them he wanted to get an energy bill rolling in July. BP's poisoning of the Gulf has apparently made energy reform look a lot more palatable than it did a few months ago. But Reid's letter was blurry on the details: He never said whether he wanted legislation that capped carbon emissions. An "energy bill," after all, could mean anything from the big Kerry-Lieberman climate bill to a scaled-down bill that just cracked down on oil companies and maybe added some funds for alternative energy sources.
Rand Paul: Pressure On BP "Un-American"
May 21, 2010
We've had to wait all week, but Rand Paul has finally decided to bless us with his thoughts on the oil spill in the Gulf: STEPHANOPOULOS: But you don’t want to get rid of the EPA? PAUL: No, the thing is is that drilling right now and the problem we’re having now is in international waters and I think there needs to be regulation of that and always has been regulation. What I don’t like from the president’s administration is this sort of, you know, “I’ll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.” I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business.
What The EPA's New Tailoring Rule Is All About
May 13, 2010
Looming in the background of the congressional debate on climate change is the fact that the EPA still has the authority to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions on its own, under the existing Clean Air Act. I outlined how that might work here. Short answer: It's complicated, and not perfect from an environmental perspective, though feasible.