|
Go to original
Monday 18 May 2009
by: Dina Cappiello
Arlington,
Virginia - The Environmental Protection Agency should not wait for
Congress before taking steps to control the gases blamed for global
warming, supporters of federal greenhouse-gas regulation said Monday.
The EPA hearing is the first of two public forums on the
agency's April finding that concentrations of carbon dioxide and five
other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere pose dangers to human health
and welfare - and that emissions from new motor vehicles and engines
are contributing to the problem.
The proposal could eventually lead to regulation of
greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, starting with emissions
standards for motor vehicles.
"We must reduce greenhouse gas emissions now without
further delay and without waiting for a perfect solution," said Navis
Bermudez, speaking on behalf of New York Gov. David A. Paterson.
"While we also hope that Congress enacts comprehensive
federal climate change legislation, we believe EPA can act now under
the existing Clean Air Act without waiting for such legislation."
The House Energy and Commerce Committee planned to begin
work later on Monday on legislation that, for the first time, would
limit the emissions blamed for global warming from large industrial
sources.
The EPA proposal has put pressure on Capitol Hill to take action.
"It is clear that the choice is no longer between doing
something and doing nothing to curb greenhouse gas pollution. It is a
choice between regulation and legislation," said Rep. Edward Markey,
D-Mass. "We believe that the bill we have crafted in the Energy and
Commerce Committee ... protects consumers and provides businesses with
the certainty they need to adapt to our clean energy future."
Which proposal will ultimately win out depends mostly on
Congress. The House bill would largely pre-empt the EPA from forcing
industries to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.
Instead, it writes a new chapter that would put a price on each ton of
pollution and allow industry to decide how to meet increasingly more
stringent targets.
President Barack Obama has made it clear that he prefers new legislation to cope with the problem.
In his weekly radio address Saturday, the president called
the bill "a plan that will finally reduce our dangerous dependence on
foreign oil and cap the carbon pollution that threatens our health and
our climate."
The agency was compelled to weigh in on the threat posed by
greenhouse gases after a 2007 Supreme Court ruling found them to be air
pollutants.
Industry groups and Republicans quickly sounded the alarm
saying the finding could eventually prompt the EPA to regulate
pollution from a whole suite of sources and burden an already troubled
economy.
That view was reiterated Monday by Bryan Brendle, director
of energy and resources policy for the National Association of
Manufacturers.
Brendle told EPA officials the Clean Air Act was ill-suited
to deal with the global problem of climate change and would "pre-empt
ongoing congressional debate on an issue that would impact all sectors
of a struggling economy."
Supporters tried to head off those criticisms Monday.
"We are concerned that other commenters have used hyperbole
to describe the consequences of potential endangerment finding claiming
it will wreak havoc ... we disagree strongly," said Nancy Kruger,
deputy director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies,
which represents state and local air pollution control agencies.
More than a hundred people are signed up to testify at the
EPA hearing, including environmentalists, scientists, religious leaders
and climate change skeptics.
The House Energy committee intends to complete work and
vote on the climate and energy bill by the end of the week. But
Republicans concerned that the 932-page proposal will drive up energy
prices and harm the economy are expected to drag out the proceedings by
offering hundreds of amendments.
The bill is H.R. 2454.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. h o t g l o b e has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is h o t g l o b e endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
|