As I wrote after the Midterms in November, the recent upheaval in the House of Representatives is of great consequence to climate legislation. The Republican majority chose Fred Upton (R-Michigan) as the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Upton’s views on climate change have run the gamut: in 2009, he spoke of the dangers of climate change and the urgency of climate action; by the end of that year, he had published an Op-Ed in The Wall Street Journal that called EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions “an unconstitutional power grab that will kill millions of jobs – unless Congress steps in.”
Upton’s piece is indicative of the prevailing Republican attitude to the EPA. This week, Senator John Barrasso (R-Wyoming) introduced a bill designed to preempt the emissions regulations. Early Wednesday, the Associated Press reported that Upton was preparing to release a similar bill in the House. These two efforts have gathered extensive Republican support; a bill introduced by Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia) is less extreme, but still aims to reduce the regulatory authority of the EPA over greenhouse emissions.
All this after – and I’m starting to sound like the hackneyed climate activist I swore I’d never become – 2010 was the warmest year on record, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s State of the Climate report.
Yet the antipathy for the EPA goes beyond the greenhouse regulation, which was validated by the Supreme Court in 2007 and not enacted until the Obama Administration. Republican attacks on the EPA aside, the regulatory necessity of the EPA is vastly underappreciated. Historically, some of the toughest EPA criticism has come not from anti-regulation activists but from parties on the left, who question the autonomy of staff scientists and strive for stricter regulatory standards.
Even though I applaud much of this criticism, I admit that environmental standards are particularly troublesome. Unlike increased food safety measures or improvements in seatbelts, it’s hard for manufacturers to incorporate massive pollution reductions when, in many cases, the only methods of production involve pollution-causing processes. That isn’t to say that many companies flagrantly abuse pollution standards or pollute more than they should. It does speak to a need for a fundamental change in how we view production. The specific tools that support our manufacturing infrastructure have to be refitted and made more sustainable. Emissions reduction plans are noble; factories that are equipped with renewable power and emit little are nobler.
There is also a strong moral component to extensive emissions. While greenhouse gas emissions are calculated on a national and global basis, the manufacturing centers of many American firms are now offshore. In this context, American firms can take advantage of relaxed environmental regulations in foreign countries while contributing to global greenhouse gas pollution. This amounts to a dastardly circumvention of corporate responsibility that will, unfortunately, only grow with time.
Despite this, Barrasso’s bill contains the following passage:
“Greenhouse gases are globally dispersed, and any attempt by a country to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of the country must be undertaken in coordination with the international community, including the developing world, in order to have any significant impact.”
Barrasso is right. Greenhouse gases are dispersed, but American interests contribute to the production of those greenhouse gases worldwide, that lead to worldwide climate consequences. And unfortunately, as Kyoto, Copenhagen and a host of international treaties suggest, the United States is often the country unwilling to take action “in coordination with the international community.”
The EPA logo is a Federal symbol and is therefore in the public domain.
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.