Posted by Juan Non-Volokh:
Cloudy Outlook for Clear Skies:
Last week, President Bush [1]reaffirmed that his [2]"Clear Skies"
proposal is his top environmental priority for the year when he
nominated [3]Stephen Johnson to be Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency. Yet Clear Skies may have trouble in Congress. The
Senate Environment Committee has repeatedly delayed consideration of
the bill because it may lack the votes necessary to approve the bill.
According to [4]this report, another markup session is scheduled for
tomorrow.
The basic idea behind "Clear Skies" is to replace existing
command-and-control regulation of utility emissions of sulfur dioxide
and nitrogen oxide with a "cap and trade" program covering these two
pollutants and mercury emissions. Basically, the legislation would set
"caps" on the total amount of emissions that power plants could emit,
and portions of the caps would be divvied out as tradable permits to
power plants. The idea is that this would encourage more
cost-effective emission reductions and facilitate greater overall
emission reductions than can be achieved under existing law through
the administrative process.
Environmental activist groups oppose "Clear Skies," claiming it will
"roll back" environmental protections under the Clean Air Act. Yet as
[5]this article by David Whitman from the liberal Washington Monthly
points out, most of the green critiques of "Clear Skies" are off base.
As Whitman describes, environmentalist leaders let their loathing for
the Bush Administration, and general distrust of Republican
politicians, get ahead of their concern for improving environmental
protection.
As might be expected, green advocates criticized the Bush bill . .
. for failing to go far enough or fast enough in reducing
pollution. But in a novel twist, environmentalists have also
asserted that Clear Skies is actually weaker than the existing
Clean Air Act�and would thus allow millions of tons of added
pollution and inflict tens of thousands of needless deaths during
the next decade. . . . In fact, this oft-repeated green bromide
turns out to be false. But the dispute over the bill's impact is
only part of the story of how the perfect has become the enemy of
the good in the clean air wars.
The claims that Clear Skies would allow for greater emissions than
current law are based upon highly questionable assumptions about the
effectiveness of ordering additional rounds of emission reductions
under current law through the regulatory process. Compared against any
set of realistic assumptions, however, Clear Skies would clearly
result in greater emissions reductions. Still, some environmental
activists would claim these reductions are not enough, and oppose any
legislation that does not include caps on carbon dioxide -- which is
not currently regulated under the Clean Air Act at all.
Whitman continues:
The response of environmental advocates to Clear Skies is not
altogether surprising, given the movement's loathing for Bush and
his appointees, many of whom were drawn from the ranks of industry
lobbyists. Yet for many years, green advocates have often shown a
self-destructive intolerance for compromise. . . . Ultimately, the
environmental movement's intense pressure to hold ranks�call it the
thin green line�precluded honest debate about Clear Skies.
The Adirondack Council and Democratic Senator Tom Carper were labeled
"Clean Air Villains" for daring to suggest Clear Skies had some merit.
For more on Clear Skies and the Whitman article, see [6]this post by
Bishop Grewell on The Commons Blog, and [7]these remarks at Gristmill.
To be sure, the Bush Administration has earned some measure of
distrust on environmental issues. But this does not excuse the
consistent misrepresentation of the Clear Skies proposal and its
likely effect on air quality. Now the damage is done, and it is
unclear whether Clear Skies, or any other needed environmental reform
proposal, will make it through this Congress.
References
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6621-2005Mar4.html
2. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/clearskies.html
3. http://www.epa.gov/adminweb/administrator/index.htm
4.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-skies4mar04,1,9551.story?coll=la-news-a_section
5. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0412.whitman.html
6. http://commonsblog.org/archives/000287.php
7. http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2004/12/27/2320/1964
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://highsorcery.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
