Bush Throws Out Tools To Fight Global Warming Threat»

Our guest blogger is Robert M. Sussman, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and former Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

President Bush and his administration are trying to block the application of existing environmental laws to the problem of climate change, claiming that a “regulatory train wreck” is on the horizon because “unelected regulators and judges” are taking action. Bush explained last week:

Some courts are taking laws written more than 30 years ago — to primarily address local and regional environmental effects — and applying them to global climate change. The Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act were never meant to regulate global climate. For example, under a Supreme Court decision last year, the Clean Air Act could be applied to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. This would automatically trigger regulation under the Clean Air Act of greenhouse gases all across our economy — leading to what Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell last week called, “a glorious mess.”

The truth is that our environmental laws were not written to be static. They are flexible tools to address unanticipated or emerging problems that science identifies over time.

The Clean Air Act is a case in point, as the Supreme Court’s Massachusetts v EPA decision illustrates. The administration argued that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are not “air pollutants” under the Act, but the Court rejected this position. It instead concluded that the Act’s definition of pollutant “embraces all airborne compounds of whatever stripe,” and that the Act’s protections against the dangers of air pollution to “public health or welfare” include a wide range of concerns, including effects on climate and weather that can harm people and ecosystems.

Even more far-fetched is the president’s belief that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was not intended to cover global warming — despite being designed to recognize the “profound impact of man’s activity on the interrelations of all components of the natural environment.” The core of NEPA is the requirement that agencies prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for all “major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” It’s simply not credible to argue that climate change — alone among environmental concerns — does not qualify.

As for the Endangered Species Act, its goal is to protect plant or animal species verging on extinction so that they do not disappear entirely. Why these species are endangered is irrelevant to compliance with the law. Is President Bush suggesting that because the polar bear population is at risk from reduced Arctic ice floes resulting from global warming, it is entitled to less protection under the Act than bald eagles, whose habitat was destroyed by over-development? Clearly, this would make no sense.

Our priority at this juncture should be exploring how we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and moderate global warming before we run out of time to take meaningful action. We should use every tool at our disposal. Sensibly implemented, existing laws enable us to get started reducing emissions while Congress debates a more comprehensive and complicated approach. Raising a false alarm about existing laws — without any analysis to back it up — is a diversionary tactic that we can ill afford.

Read more here.

UPDATE: Warming Law notes that the Washington Post editorial board bought into Bush’s “train wreck” argument.

In Review: Bush’s Day Of Climate Contempt»

This Wednesday, April 16, the Bush administration took action on several fronts to show his contempt for Congress, the courts, and the planet.

Contempt for the Planet. President Bush took center stage in the Rose Garden on Wednesday, claiming he has taken a “rational, balanced approach” to climate change and calling for an “ambitious new track” of not capping greenhouse emissions until 2025 — a goal that would spell disaster for the planet. He also denigrated the Supreme Court decision mandating the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gases — a decision he once called “the law of the land.” This contempt underlies actions taken by the EPA and the Department of Justice that very same day.

Contempt for Congress. Also on Wednesday, the EPA’s associate administrator Christopher P. Bliley flatly declined to obey a House Global Warming Committee subpoena for documents relating to EPA’s refusal to obey the Supreme Court mandate. This act of defiance has now “triggered a potential contempt process” against EPA administrator Stephen L. Johnson.

Contempt for the Courts. In September of last year, a federal judge ruled against the auto industry’s attempt to block the 17 states who are acting to regulate tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions. This ruling hinges upon California’s petition for a waiver to regulate emissions — the waiver EPA’s Johnson denied in December. Late Wednesday, the Department of Justice sided with the American Automobile Manufacturers’ appeal, citing Johnson’s denial. However, in the EPA’s own judgment, Johnson’s decision will be overturned. With shameless audacity, the administration is now asking an appeals court to compound the error.

UPDATE: Warming Law explains that the Justice Department “is asking that the Second Circuit declare the entire case ‘not justiciable’ on ripeness grounds” — that is, arguing that the case never should even been considered in the first place.

Earth To Bush: We Can’t Wait 15 More Years»

President Bush just delivered his Rose Garden global warming speech:

If we fully implement our strong new laws, adhere to the principles I’ve outlined, and adopt appropriate incentives, we will put America on an ambitious new track for greenhouse gas reductions. The growth in emissions will slow over the next decade, stop by 2025, and begin to reverse thereafter, so long as technology continues to advance.

At the White House press briefing today, James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, heaped praise on Bush’s plan:

I would just observe, Europe as a union has stated a mid-term goal. They are working on how they’re going to implement that in each member state. Canada has stated a mid-term goal. The United States has now stated a mid-term goal.

We are the only three that have done that so far, but we know that all of the other major economies are working on it, and so we’re giving our own signal about how we’re structuring what we’re going to do, and hopefully they’ll reflect off of that and make appropriate decisions for their economies as well.

Let’s review:

Vice President Al Gore rightly described Canada’s plan when the Conservative government released it last year as “a complete and total fraud.” Bush’s proposal is sheer lunacy.

Bush’s plan, if the rest of the world followed suit, would push the planet into territory never before seen in the history of human civilization. For his senior environmental adviser to even compare this to Europe’s mandatory and unilateral commitment to aggressive greenhouse reductions is beyond shameful.

UPDATE: Climate Progress and Gristmill have more. The U.S. Climate Action Network links to responses from member organizations, including the Center for American Progress.

UPDATE II: Warming Law notes Bush’s astounding contempt for the Supreme Court.

UPDATE III: Responses from House global warming committee chairman Ed Markey (D-MA), Senate environment committee chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and ranking member James Inhofe (R-OK), Campaign for America’s Future, and Energy Smart.

Right Wing Enters Second Stage Of Climate Solution Acceptance: Anger»

President Bush is prepared today to deliver his “rational, balanced approach to these serious challenges” of energy use and global warming. Earlier this week, members of the Bush administration met with members on the Hill on the issue, and then gave the scoop to the right-wing Washington Times. What Bush is offering — the goal of capping emissions by 2025 — is worse than what he claimed he would do in 2000 as the Republican nominee for president. Since that day, the administration has stripmined the economy and the environment at the behest of the energy industry. Aware of his lame duck status, Bush has moved on from denial to bargaining.

The core of the right wing, however, is still in denial, and the prospect of Bush leaving their camp has thrown them into incoherent rage.

Iain Murray at the National Review’s Corner blog:

I cannot emphasize too much how idiotic this is. At a time when the poor of the country and the world are feeling the twin crunches of credit being withdrawn and food and energy prices rising, jacking up energy prices farther will just add insult to injury. The fat cat traders of Wall Street will be licking their lips, of course. Meanwhile, House and Senate Republicans and (yes, some) Democrats who have stood up for the American consumer against this insanity will be left hanging. Those who voted for Bush in the mistaken belief they wouldn’t get Gore’s policies will have been betrayed. The political center on energy and environment will be jerked massively to the left. Some acheivement [sic].

Mr. Bush, if you think this will secure your legacy, you are right. Your legacy will be just one word: Recession.

People need to get very, very angry about this. I know I am.

Tony Blankley in the Washington Times:

Just as an increasing number of scientists are finding their courage to speak out against the global warming alarmists, and just as a building body of evidence and theories challenge the key elements of the human-centric carbon-based global warming theories — President Bush takes this moment to say in effect: “We are all global alarmists now.” […]

All he can do is set the stage for next year’s legislation, by giving away the rhetorical store and weakening the already modest backbone of Republican legislators.

The liberal world order will not let go of their global-warming assault on free economies until hell freezes over — by which point, obviously, the global-warming theory will be visibly disproven.

Chris Horner at the National Review’s Planet Gore blog admits the right wing’s real fear:

[T]he president will have caused harm by embracing the global-warming agenda, regardless of the specifics of what he calls for today. The moment he legitimizes the agenda, he will have lost control of the issue.