\nvery clear that they want Congress, rather than EPA, to take the lead in
\ncreating a national response to climate change. Despite their oft-repeated preference for congressional action,
\nrecently, EPA head Lisa Jackson had to once again reiterate<\/a> that the agency had no plans to do a carbon cap.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
There is some irony in members of
\nCongress worrying about what EPA is up to when their time might be better spent
\nputting a law together themselves.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Under existing law, it is possible <\/p>\n But going down this road has many <\/p>\n The second problem is the threat of a <\/p>\n Running carbon pricing through EPA is <\/p>\n There is also a small “d” democratic <\/p>\n But if Congress cannot get its act <\/p>\n There is still time and a glimmer of Related Links:<\/strong><\/p>\n A messy but practical strategy for phasing out the U.S. coal fleet<\/a><\/p>\n Citizens gather in Washington to end ‘mountain bombing’ of Appalachia<\/a><\/p>\n
\nfor EPA to create an economy-wide price on carbon. The Clean Air Act gives the agency broad
\nauthority to regulate pollutants deemed harmful to the health and safety of the
\npopulation, and there are several routes<\/a> EPA could take to create a national cap-and-trade, even
\npotentially setting up allowance auctions and going through states to refund
\nthe profits back to American taxpayers.<\/p>\n
\ndownsides. First, (apologies to Paul
\nThomas Anderson) there will be lawsuits.
\nEven if EPA uses cap-and-trade to keep the costs of regulation down, certain
\nindustry groups<\/a> will be in court before the ink
\nis dry on the new rule. And even if
\ncourts ultimately side with EPA, these lawsuits will succeed in slowing down
\nprogress.<\/p>\n
\nnew president coming in and dismantling the system. Anything that Obama does can be undone by a
\nfuture administration-either directly or through a lack of budget support and
\nenforcement.<\/p>\n
\nalso a little more unwieldy than it could be if structured by smart legislative
\naction. Regulators would have to
\njury-rig an auction system, possibly needing to enlist the help of the
\nstates. Command-and-control mandates
\nunder the Clean Air Act would stand, potentially hindering the efficiency of
\nthe program.<\/p>\n
\nissue. Controlling America’s greenhouse gases will
\ntake a massive economy-wide effort and there is a legitimate benefit in having
\nthe issue hashed out in the legislature by elected officials. That is not necessarily to say that the
\nlegislature will arrive at a better plan than regulators, but a new law passed
\nby Congress and signed by the president would have a have a stronger democratic
\nimprimatur than an EPA regulation.<\/p>\n
\ntogether, a Plan B of EPA action would not be so bad. If the regulation is well-designed and
\njustified according to the letter of the law, it will be better able to
\novercome legal challenge. Auctioning
\npermits and sending a monthly refund check to taxpayers would build broad based
\npublic support for the program, buffering it from the winds of change in the
\nWhite House. While running cap-and-trade
\nthrough EPA is not preferable, it is clearly better than infinite delay in
\nCongress.<\/p>\n
\nhope for a climate bill has
\nbeen rekindled<\/a>.
\nBut if it doesn’t pass, the world’s eyes will turn to EPA with hope that
\nthey are prepared to pick up the slack.
\nWith that in mind, legislators’ best strategy for fending off a more
\nactive regulatory agency is to get to work and pass a bill themselves.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/a.rfihub.com\/eus.gif?eui=2223\"\/)
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"