<\/p>\n
Senators drafting comprehensive climate and clean energy legislation are negotiating with polluters<\/a>, and talking about combining a cap on carbon with public incentives<\/a> for nuclear plants, “clean coal,” and offshore drilling<\/a>. <\/p>\n We would then rely entirely on the Environmental Protection Agency’s <\/p>\n In addition, polluters have all kinds of legal tools they can—and <\/p>\n By abandoning legislative reform, climate advocates could instead spend their resources on litigating against sources of global warming pollution<\/a>. <\/p>\n If climate legislation reaches President Obama’s desk with a robust <\/p>\n It is a travesty that political reality makes it is incredibly <\/p>\n At the same time, the federal legislative push shouldn’t be the <\/p>\n Anyone who wants to see a stronger bill can help make it happen by putting meaningful pressure<\/a> on the senators who are sitting on the fence or near it<\/a> to support strong climate legislation, and being descriptive<\/a> in naming what you’d like to see legislation do.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n That’s the only way to reduce the number of unappetizing deals that <\/p>\n What’s critical for activists—including professional environmentalists—to remember is that the goal of climate activism isn’t comprehensive climate legislation, or strong Related Links:<\/strong><\/p>\n Lindsey ‘Green Economy’ Graham bashes the Clean Air Act<\/a><\/p>\n Reminder: the U.S. already has cap-and-trade—in the Northeast<\/a><\/p>\n American Enterprise Institute accidentally makes the case for climate legislation<\/a><\/p>\n
\nShould supporters of strong, progressive action to solve the climate
\ncrisis give up on Congress and work within the existing legal framework
\nof the Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act, and other environmental
\nlegislation?<\/p>\n
\nexisting authority to set rules for greenhouse gas pollution. However,
\nthe EPA is subject to the same outside political pressures<\/a> as lawmakers, who control the EPA’s purse-strings. Single members of
\nCongress or single committee chairmen can interfere quite effectively
\nwith agency activities if they put their mind to it.<\/p>\n
\nalready are starting to—use to tie up, slow down and otherwise impede
\nthe implementation of EPA rules. Without a Congressional mandate behind
\nit, the EPA will not have the political power it needs to implement
\nrules with the kind of strength activists want and the science demands.
\nThe success of EPA rules absent Congressional action would depend on
\nthe politics of whatever administration is in power.<\/p>\n
\nBut it also takes a lot of money and time to litigate against a coal
\nplant, and even more to win at it. Even if we could knock out all the
\nnew coal plants through litigation, that isn’t going to be a workable
\nstrategy for dealing with the ones that are already chugging away, not
\nto mention the refineries, chemical plants, and the rest of the
\nindustrial sector, or the transportation sector.<\/p>\n
\nframework, and gets core elements in place, we will come back to it and
\nkeep making it better over time. We couldn’t get Congress to get the
\nClean Air Act right the first time. So the original 1967 law was
\namended—in 1970, then again in 1977, then again in 1990. This is why
\nstrong—and rapid—scientific review provisions are an important
\nelement.<\/p>\n
\ndifficult to get even a watered-down climate bill even into the
\nballpark of passage. To change that situation, we need to mobilize grassroots activism<\/a> to change the political calculus for key states like Arkansas, Missouri, the Dakotas, Indiana, West Virginia, and so on.<\/p>\n
\nbasket where all the eggs are placed either; policymaking at the local, state, and regional levels<\/a> have always led the federal level, and the traditional Clean Air Act
\nframework is well-designed and understood. New climate legislation
\nshould integrate with existing policy through amendment, not blanket
\npreemption.<\/p>\n
\nare going to get made. Telling people that the vehicle that’s moving
\nright now is hopeless and worthless<\/a> makes the sponsors’ jobs that much harder—which means they’ll just cut more deals in order to get the bill done.<\/p>\n
\nEPA enforcement of the Clean Air Act. Our shared, common goal is a
\ngreen economy that rewards work, not pollution, and saves the natural
\ngifts of the world without which we all perish.<\/p>\n