Republicans Slam Obama’s Back Door Shut
A new year and a different sound: In the United States, a new Congress has lined up and that means conflict in all kinds of areas, including climate legislation. President Obama had already given up on the idea of navigating a law through the Senate during this term, which was to curb carbon dioxide emissions via carbon trade.
But now he will have to operate very carefully to prevent that alternative political route from getting blocked. Republicans will do everything in their power to slam shut the back door to Obama's climate policy, for they are fiercely opposed to attempts by the Environmental Protection Agency to introduce restrictions on the unobstructed emission of greenhouse gases. The EPA can do that because they have concluded that the emission of CO2 can pose a danger to public health. If that is indeed true, the agency is obliged to take action based on the Clean Air Act.
Companies and various American states (including Florida and Texas) are trying to get their right to unobstructed emissions through a whole series of lawsuits. There are almost as many states that support the EPA in the lawsuits. The plaintiffs have a double strategy. On the one hand, they pose that the EPA has wrongly, and based on insufficient research, concluded that CO2 is harmful. On the other hand, they argue that the EPA is not allowed to selectively apply the law in its regulation by only tackling the large polluters, as is the case now.
Texas also fights its own battle. The southern oil state has decided not to implement the legislation of the EPA, which took effect on Jan. 2. The state has started a lawsuit based on the argument that the EPA has no control over Texan “domestic” policy.
It will be difficult to navigate in the future — not only for the EPA and Obama, but also for opponents of the legislation. If the EPA goes too far, the Republicans in Congress will try even more fiercely to rein in the agency. But Obama has to do something to keep his own followers happy. “[The Obama government and the EPA cannot] afford the luxury of neglecting their obligations toward environmental organizations,” analyst Kevin Book of ClearView Energy Partners tells press agency Reuters.*
The Republicans also cannot go too far in their criticism of the EPA. The organization has a good reputation with many Americans where the protection of public health is concerned. Moreover, the chance is very high that Obama will veto drastic actions taken by Republicans to thwart his plans. The website Grist has a nice comic about the recent debate.
The budget watchdog of the White House concludes that the environmental measures of the EPA are generally financially favorable for the U.S. That is partially a result of the cautious and careful introduction of new legislation, where economic consequences are well studied. As the Huffington Post writes:
“... EPA issued 30 major regulations from 1999 to 2009 at an estimated cost of $25.8 billion to $29.2 billion against estimated benefits ranging from $81.9 billion to $533 billion. As a society we have really not taken leave of our senses. When we make policies, the benefits generally outweigh the costs. Of course, for any given corporation or particular factory in any given financial quarter, the costs may be far higher than the benefits. And the costs might be borne by one group while the benefits may be felt by another. Still the idea that environmental rules kill jobs and destroy our quality of life is deceptive propaganda. It is part of a subtle and symbolic political campaign with the goal of delegitimizing government's role in protecting the environment.”
*Editor’s Note: This quotation, while accurately translated, could not be verified.
But now he will have to operate very carefully to prevent that alternative political route from getting blocked. Republicans will do everything in their power to slam shut the back door to Obama's climate policy, for they are fiercely opposed to attempts by the Environmental Protection Agency to introduce restrictions on the unobstructed emission of greenhouse gases. The EPA can do that because they have concluded that the emission of CO2 can pose a danger to public health. If that is indeed true, the agency is obliged to take action based on the Clean Air Act.
Companies and various American states (including Florida and Texas) are trying to get their right to unobstructed emissions through a whole series of lawsuits. There are almost as many states that support the EPA in the lawsuits. The plaintiffs have a double strategy. On the one hand, they pose that the EPA has wrongly, and based on insufficient research, concluded that CO2 is harmful. On the other hand, they argue that the EPA is not allowed to selectively apply the law in its regulation by only tackling the large polluters, as is the case now.
Texas also fights its own battle. The southern oil state has decided not to implement the legislation of the EPA, which took effect on Jan. 2. The state has started a lawsuit based on the argument that the EPA has no control over Texan “domestic” policy.
It will be difficult to navigate in the future — not only for the EPA and Obama, but also for opponents of the legislation. If the EPA goes too far, the Republicans in Congress will try even more fiercely to rein in the agency. But Obama has to do something to keep his own followers happy. “[The Obama government and the EPA cannot] afford the luxury of neglecting their obligations toward environmental organizations,” analyst Kevin Book of ClearView Energy Partners tells press agency Reuters.*
The Republicans also cannot go too far in their criticism of the EPA. The organization has a good reputation with many Americans where the protection of public health is concerned. Moreover, the chance is very high that Obama will veto drastic actions taken by Republicans to thwart his plans. The website Grist has a nice comic about the recent debate.
The budget watchdog of the White House concludes that the environmental measures of the EPA are generally financially favorable for the U.S. That is partially a result of the cautious and careful introduction of new legislation, where economic consequences are well studied. As the Huffington Post writes:
“... EPA issued 30 major regulations from 1999 to 2009 at an estimated cost of $25.8 billion to $29.2 billion against estimated benefits ranging from $81.9 billion to $533 billion. As a society we have really not taken leave of our senses. When we make policies, the benefits generally outweigh the costs. Of course, for any given corporation or particular factory in any given financial quarter, the costs may be far higher than the benefits. And the costs might be borne by one group while the benefits may be felt by another. Still the idea that environmental rules kill jobs and destroy our quality of life is deceptive propaganda. It is part of a subtle and symbolic political campaign with the goal of delegitimizing government's role in protecting the environment.”
*Editor’s Note: This quotation, while accurately translated, could not be verified.
Previous article![]( "Optimism Accompanied by Pessimism:The U.S. Economy Cools Down")
