As the Clean Air Act Turns 40

• Author: Margaret Kriz Hobson
• Position: Journalist-inresidence at Resources for the Future
• Pages: 8-8

Page 8 ❧ THE ENVIRONMENTAL FORUM Copyright © 2010, Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, D.C. www.eli.org.

Reprinted by permission from The Environmental Forum®, Nov./Dec. 2010

As the Clean Air

Act Turns 40

Is there life after the demise of climate

change legislation? Supporters of

Congress’s unsuccessful ef‌fort to con-

trol emissions of greenhouse gases were

asking that question at a September

conference commemorating the 40th

anniversary of the Clean Air Act.

Representative Henry Waxman (D-

California), the chairman of the Energy

and Commerce Committee, promised

that next year he will revive his cam-

paign to pass climate change legislation.

Waxman was instrumental in pushing a

bill through the House by a slim vote,

with only eight Republicans signing on.

e legislation died in the Senate, where

leaders were unable to cobble together a

consensus bill. “What did we lack this

year? We had no bipartisan coopera-

tion,” Waxman told the conference.

Despite his pledge, environmental

leaders conceded that climate change

legislation is of‌f the radar screen. With

the conservative Republican leadership

gaining more muscle in the House and

Senate, the partisan bickering will only

get worse next year, said former Envi-

ronmental Protection Agency Admin-

istrator William K. Reilly. “I don’t see

the likelihood of a break in the congres-

sional stalemate absent a strong surge in

public concern,” he said. “It’s going to

take some serious natural disaster that

is associated in the public’s mind with

climate change.”

e global warming battle in Wash-

ington is already shifting from Capitol

Hill to other battlegrounds, notably the

executive branch. e White House

is moving full steam ahead with plans

to use the Clean Air Act to control

greenhouse gases. at push could end,

however, if Republicans and coal-state

Democrats are successful at passing leg-

islation to block the agency.

But even without direct carbon reg-

ulations, the administration has found

indirect ways to reduce the nation’s

climate change footprint. EPA’s new

regulations to control coal ash, hazard-

ous chemicals, and other air pollutants

will go a long way toward forcing elec-

tric utilities to shut down their oldest

coal-f‌ired power plants. Exelon Corp.

CEO John Rowe said that as a result

of the EPA regulations, the economic

slowdown, and low natural gas prices,

“utilities are already shutting down or

mothballing old coal plants” that pro-

duce high levels of carbon dioxide and

other greenhouse gases.

e White House Council on En-

vironmental Quality

is promoting a new

policy for enforcing

the National Envi-

ronmental Policy Act,

which insiders say

could require agencies

to consider the climate

change impacts of any federal action,

including constr uction of infrastr uc-

ture projects.

e administration is considering

an array of policy options that would

reduce energy demand and promote

cleaner fuels — steps that could also go

a long way in cutting U.S. emissions of

global warming pollution, according to

John Holdren, director of the White

House Of‌f‌ice of Science and Technol-

ogy Policy. “We’re looking very system-

atically at the array of levers that are

available to the executive branch to take

on dif‌ferent pieces of this problem,”

Holdren told the conference. “ere

is a lot of executive authority without

waiting for the Congress, and we have

used some of it already.”

Meanwhile, environmental and con-

sumer groups, including the Natural

Resources Defense Council and Sierra

Club, are lobbying the White House

to raise automobile fuel-ef‌f‌iciency stan-

dards to 60 miles per gallon by 2025.

e current standard, which runs out

in 2016, is 34 mpg. e advocates argue

that automakers have the technology to

meet the standards. But they conceded

that the best way to meet the new man-

dates would be to sell more hybrid cars

and plug-in electric vehicles.

ere are some environmentally

friendly actions that a politically con-

f‌licted Congress might be able to agree

on. In the weeks before the November

elections, conservative Senator Sam

Brownback (R-Kansas) joined forces

with Senate Energy and Natural Re-

sources Committee Chairman Jef‌f

Bingaman (D-New Mexico) to push

for creation of a standard requiring

power companies to obtain some of

their electric supply from renewable re-

sources. “A sensible and modest renew-

able energy standard will help encour-

age home-grown supplies like wind in

Kansas and help diver-

sify our nation’s energy

sources,” Brownback

said in a press release.

Republicans might

also back tax benef‌its

for wind, solar, and

other renewables.

At the CAA anniversary conference,

Reilly called on Washington to focus

on energy ef‌f‌iciency and clean energy

programs that could also cut emissions

of greenhouse gases — programs that

are more likely to win the suppor t of

conservatives and the public.

But former congressman Sher-

wood Boehlert warned that Repub-

licans and Democrats are likely to

remain at the opposite ends of the

political spectrum when it comes

to most environmental policies. As

a result, today’s political standof‌f is

not likely to change during the next

Congress. “e best we can hope for

[on environmental action] is inertia,”

he said. “e worst is disaster.”

By Margaret Kriz Hobson

Margaret Kriz Hobson is journalist-i n-

residence a t Resources for t he Future. She

can be reached a t krizhobson@gmail.com.

T F B

“e best we can hope

for on environmental

action is inertia, the

worst is disaster”