EPA: Enviro-policy Policemen

Thus far my focus has been primarily on policymakers. But what about the policy enforcers? The strictest climate legislation possible would be worthless in the hands of a do-nothing EPA. Time to take a look at the Environmental Protection Agency's role in all of this policy talk.

Over the past eight years it's been easy to forget the EPA's roles outside its presidential bedfellow services. Under Bush the agency determined to work for "a cleaner, healthier environment for the American people" became nothing more than a front for conservative disavowals of global warming or any ecological urgency really. Recently, a landmark EPA finding indicates things might be looking up for the tarnished agency. On April 17, 2009 after a two year review, the Environmental Protection Agency declared that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases, "endanger public health and welfare." While the announcement seems to merely confirm the obvious, its significance for environmental policy is substantial. Firstly, the finding formally classifies greenhouse gases (GHGs) as pollutants. This change enables the EPA, whose regulatory hands had previously been tied over GHGs, to enforce emissions standards on the substances. Secondly, the declaration marks a victory in fighting global warming. Not only can we finally see some hard regulation of GHG-emitters as the polluters they are, but the finding directly recognizes human-caused climate change.

"In both magnitude and probability, climate change is an enormous problem. The greenhouse gases that are responsibile for it endanger public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act," reads one section of the EPA document. The finding recognizes long-term reasons to combat climate change, such as increased drought, heavier flooding, more frequent wildfires, and sea level rise. The announcement even suggests security issues tied to global warming, such as increased violence in destabilized regions caused by scarcity of resources such as water.

The Obama EPA is therefore off to a great start and seems poised to tackle our environmental concerns with newly equipped muscles. If our precious climate bill ever sees the light of day and becomes a law the EPA will be charged with enforcing the legislation. Most importantly, the agency will develop specific regulatory standards for carbon emissions, the issue at the forefront of environmental policy these days.

This recent decision has caused a bit of a stir within Congress. Energy bill coauthor Henry Waxman has been using the EPA as a threat to elicit GOP support in passing regulatory specifics. Breakthrough Institute's Tyler Burton calls Waxman's tactic "the 'EPA will regulate unless you act' bluff," as it urges GOPs to compromise on climate legislation before the EPA unilaterally passes stricter standards. However, Burton points out that Republicans may call this bluff. Extensive EPA regulation eliminates bipartisan debate, therefore opening the door for GOP criticisms of any negative aspects of regulatory policies. This may hold true, as EPA administrator Lisa Jackson testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee this past Wednesday that federal limits on GHGs would lead to "modest" increases in electricity. As Burton claims, this might lead to a "protracted 'you go first' stalemate between EPA and Congress as no one will want to be responsible for increasing the costs of energy." Once again an apparent victory reveals its drawbacks. Hopefully, the EPA will step up and take responsibility. Higher costing energy is a necessary first step toward a clean energy economy.