Endangering the Public Welfare pril 17, 2009, will forever be remembered as the day when the U.S. EPA first resolved that greenhouse gases (GHGs) endanger the public health and welfare. Such an admission is a prerequisite for issuing rules to stem the threat of climate change. Lisa Jackson, EPA administrator, upon announcing the proposal, said, “This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations.” Notice that she used the word pollution in connection with GHGs for the first timesindicating that EPA has the right to regulate them under the Clean Air Act. Her determination follows from the Supreme Court ruling on April 2, 2007, that the EPA administrator must make such a determination for new motor vehicles. Jackson’s phrase “and for future generations” is important because it points to an intergenerational responsibility not previously recognized. And it is consistent with the prevailing notion of sustainable development “...meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Our Common Future, 1987). EPA has determined that human-caused GHG emissions increase average global temperatures and the likelihood of heat waves, wildfires, severe storms, droughts, and floods. GHGs even affect national security by stressing water supplies and agriculture, which would then increase food prices and poverty throughout the world. A new era has dawned in the U.S., but at this point the findings are still, technically, a proposal. The administrator has signed a document proposing two separate findings: endangerment, and a cause or “contribute” finding. Specifically, as stated in its prepublication web version, EPA finds that: (1) GHGs endanger the public health and welfare of current and future generations within the meaning of the Clean Air Act, Section 202(a); and (2) combined emissions of GHGs from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the threat of climate change. Comments on the proposal will be received for 60 days, and then EPA will be empowered to draft rules for new motor vehicles’ emissions of CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, hydro- and perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Regulations for power plants could follow with another finding. Many people would prefer for Congress to pass broad climate legislation rather than for EPA to promulgate specific standards for cars, light-duty vehicles, and trucks. Carol Browner, chief of the White House climate staff, said earlier this month in Boston that the “endangerment finding” likely would not be used to regulate emissions. But it could be used to regulate emissions of new vehicles, similar to California clean car standards, and it would work in tandem with a legislated carbon-trading program. So, as I write, all eyes are turning toward Congress as the House and Senate consider sweeping legislation that would establish a cap-
A
10.1021/es901173z
2009 American Chemical Society
Published on Web 04/30/2009
and-trade program, thus setting a regulated market price for CO2 on a per-ton basis. It’ll be war in Congress over this issue. Last year, the Lieberman–Warner Climate Security Act failed 48-36 (60 votes were needed) in a procedural Senate vote in the days when gasoline prices were $4/gal. Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) threw fossil fuel on the climate fire with his mandatory litmus test: “Any action should not raise the cost of gasoline or energy to American families.” Republicans felt they could embarrass Democrats into admitting that a cap-and-trade program would increase the cost of energy, and then stick them with it. Little has changed this year. John Thune (R-SD) introduced an amendment in the Senate “...to require that such legislation does not increase electricity or gasoline prices.” That’s ludicrous, because the very purpose of carbon trading is to set a market price on avoiding or removing a ton of GHGs (CO2 equivalents). Such trading will raise the cost of fossil fuels because they add CO2 to the atmosphere and affect our climate, and that damage is not (presently) ciphered into the cost of energy. High-carbon-emitting fuels like coal will increase in price, low-emitting energy sources like wind and solar will become cheaper, and then the market will determine the proper mix at a given “cap” level. The average U.S. citizen doesn’t know what to think. By now, there has been such a strong misinformation campaign on the part of climate skeptics that people are not sure whether the climate is warming or cooling, and they couldn’t care less as long as an economic depression is prevented. (“A recession is when your neighbor loses his job; a depression is when you lose yours,” Harry S. Truman.) A carpet bombing of “sound science” has emanated from scientists and skeptics such that confusion and tedium have won the day. It’s a pity, because transitioning from the fossil fuel age to renewable and/or efficient energy sources represents an enormous economic opportunity that will create millions of green-collar jobs and provide a more sustainable future for our children. Not to worry. If we cannot pass legislation, there are always the “geoengineering” options of stratospheric aerosol injections, sunshades in space, or marine stratiform clouds to save us. Who should perform the endangerment assessments on those?
Jerald L. Schnoor Editor
[email protected] June 1, 2009 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 9 3985
