Yesterday on NPR’s radio program To the Point, I said it was dishonorable for ExxonMobil to support a carbon tax. I compared ExxonMobil’s reported embrace of carbon taxes to Enron’s lobbying for the Kyoto Protocol.

Enron was a a major natural gas distributor and saw in Kyoto a means to suppress demand for coal, natural gas’s chief competitor in the electricity fuel market. ExxonMobil is a major natural gas producer. So I took this to be another case of political capitalism – corporate lobbying to replace a competitive market with a rigged market to enrich a particular firm or industry at the expense of competitors and consumers.

The NPR program host said something like “even oil companies like ExxonMobil now support a carbon tax,” alluding to a Nov. 16 Bloomberg Businessweek article titled ”Carbon Fee From Obama Seen Viable With Backing From Exxon.” I too had read the article, and ExxonMobil’s reported behavior struck me as imprudent as well as unkosher. A carbon tax could come back to bite natural gas producers big time if the EPA decides, along the lines of Cornell University research, that fugitive methane emissions from hydraulic fracturing make natural gas as carbon-intensive as coal.

The Bloomberg article quoted an email from ExxonMobil spokesperson Kimberly Brasington:

Combined with further advances in energy efficiency and new technologies spurred by market innovation, a well-designed carbon tax could play a significant role in addressing the challenge of rising emissions. A carbon tax should be made revenue neutral via tax offsets in other areas.

As explained previously on this site, a revenue-neutral carbon tax is a political pipedream, as is a carbon tax that preempts EPA and State-level greenhouse gas regulations. ExxonMobil is too savvy not to know this. So I interpreted Brasington’s caveats (“combined,” “well-designed,” “revenue-neutral”) to be the typical K Street evasiveness of those wishing to signal rather than declare their support for a controversial policy.

But articles published today in FuelFix and The Hill contend that ExxonMobil “does not support” a carbon tax and is “not encouraging policymakers” to impose such a tax. Both articles quote ExxonMobil VP for public affairs and government relations Ken Cohen:

If policymakers are going to adopt a measure, a regime to affect or put in place a cost on the use of carbon across the economy, then as we look at the range of options, our economists and most economists would support a revenue-neutral, economy-wide carbon tax as the most transparent and efficient way of putting in place a cost on the use of carbon.

Not supporting and not encouraging is not the same as opposing. Indeed, not opposing while saying But if you’re gonna do it, do it like this! can be a low-profile way to support and encourage! Also, why say anything favorable about carbon taxes when cap-and-trade is dead and there’s no longer even a weak prudential case for supporting carbon taxes as the lesser evil?

According to FuelFix, Cohen rejected a carbon tax “imposed solely to raise revenue.”

“If the policy objective is to raise revenue, it’s not on the table,” he [Cohen] said, insisting that a better way to send dollars to federal coffers would be to open up more public lands and waters for drilling.

But of course the leading objective for many proponents is precisely to raise revenue.* Carbon taxes have suddenly emerged as a hot topic for one reason only — their potential to sustain Washington’s spending addiction for a few more years. The folks at ExxonMobil have to know this.

So the question returns: Why on Earth at this time is ExxonMobil making happy noise about carbon taxes? 

* Ditto for cap and trade. As my colleague FOIA master Christopher Horner discovered, the Obama Treasury Department estimated cap-and-trade would bring in revenues up to $400 billion annually from carbon permit sales — a share of GDP roughly equal in size to the corporate income tax.

In a fiery speech yesterday, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) ”calls out” “climate deniers.” In the first half of the speech he goes ad hominem, attacking opponents as “front groups” who take payola from “polluters” to “confuse” the public by selling “doubt” as their product.

First a bit of free advice for the good Senator:

Your team has been playing nasty from day one. It didn’t get you cap-and-trade, it didn’t get you Senate ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, and it’s not going to get you a carbon tax.  

Vilification doesn’t work because biomass, wind turbines, and solar panels are not up to the challenge of powering a modern economy, and most Americans are too practical to believe otherwise.

So by all means, keep talking trash about your opponents. The shriller your rhetoric, the more skeptical the public will become about your bona fides as an honest broker of “the science.”

Okay, let’s examine Sen. Whitehouse’s argument. He accuses skeptics of peddling “straw man arguments,” such as that “the earth’s climate always changes; it’s been warmer in the past.” Well, it does, and it has! Many studies indicate the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was warmer than the current warm period (CWP). A study published in July in Nature Climate Change concludes the Roman Warm Period (RWP) was warmer than both the MWP and CWP. The Northern Hemisphere was substantially warmer than the present for thousands of years during the Holocene Climate Optimum (~5,000-9,000 years ago). Arctic summer air temperatures were 4-5°C above present temperatures for millennia during the previous interglacial period.

None of this is evidence man-made global warming is not occurring, but Sen. Whitehouse sets up his own straw man by making that the main issue in dispute. What the paleoclimate information does indicate is that the warmth of the past 50 years is not outside the range of natural variability and is no cause for alarm. The greater-than-present warmth of the Holocene Optimum, RWP, and MWP contributed to improvements in human health and welfare. 

Sen. Whitehouse says skeptics also knock down a straw man when they deny extreme weather events prove the reality of climate change. “No credible source is arguing that extreme weather events are proof of climate change,” he states. Again, it’s Sen. Whitehouse who whacks a man of straw. The problem for skeptics is not that people like Al Gore or the editors of Bloomberg cite Hurricanes Katrina or Sandy as “proof” of global warming, it’s that they blame global warming (hence “polluters”) for Katrina and Sandy. They insinuate or even assert that were it not for climate change, such events would not occur or would be much less deadly. As the Senator does when he says climate change ”loads the dice” in favor of events like Sandy and is “associated with” such events.

I freely grant that heat waves will become more frequent and severe in a warmer world (just as cold spells will become less frequent and milder). However, there is no persuasive evidence global warming caused or contributed significantly to the European heat wave of 2003, the Russian heat wave of 2010, the Texas drought of 2011, or the U.S. midwest drought of 2012. A slew of scientific papers finds no long-term trend in Atlantic hurricane behavior, including a recent study based on 370 years of tropical cyclone data. Similarly, a U.S. Geological Survey study finds no correlation between flood magnitudes and atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in any region of the continental U.S. over the past 85 years.

More importantly, despite long-term increases in both CO2 concentrations and global temperatures since the 1920s, global deaths and death rates related to extreme weather declined by 93% and 98% respectively. The 93% reduction in annual weather-related deaths is particularly noteworthy because global population increased more than 300% since the 1920s.

Although weather-related damages are much bigger today, that is because there’s tons more stuff and lots more people in harm’s way. For example, more people live in just two Florida counties, Dade and Broward, than lived in all 109 coastal counties stretching from Texas to Virginia in the 1930s. When weather-related damages are adjusted (“normalized”) to account for changes in population, wealth, and inflation, there is no long-term trend. So although a “greenhouse signal” may some day emerge from weather-related mortality and economic loss data, at this point global warming’s influence, if any, is undetectable.

Sen. Whitehouse dismisses as a “gimmick” skeptics’ observation that there has been “no warming trend in the last ten years” (actually, the last 16 years).  He contends that the 20 warmest years in the instrumental record have occurred since 1981 ”with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years.” That may be correct, but it is beside the point. A decade and a half of no net warming continues the plodding 0.14°C per decade warming trend of the past 33 years. These data call into question the climate sensitivity assumptions underpinning the big scary warming projections popularized by NASA scientist James Hansen, the UN IPCC, and the UK Government’s Stern Review report.

Sen. Whitehouse says ”deniers tend to ignore facts they can’t explain away.” He continues: “For example, the increasing acidification of the oceans is simple to measure and undeniably, chemically linked to carbon concentrations in the atmosphere. So we hear nothing about ocean acidification from the deniers.” Not so. CO2Science.Org, a leading skeptical Web site, has an extensive (and growing) ocean acidification database. Almost every week the CO2Science folks review another study on the subject. Cato Institute scholars Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger also addressed the issue on their old Web site, World Climate Report. They don’t share Sen. Whitehouse’s alarm about ocean acidification, but they do not ignore it. The Senator should check his facts before casting aspersions.

Sen. Whitehouse quotes NOAA stating that the rate of global sea level rise in the last decade “was nearly double” the 20th century rate. That is debatable. Colorado State University researchers find no warming-related acceleration in sea-level rise in recent decades.

Here’s the big picture. Scary projections of rapid sea-level rise assume rapid increases in ice loss from Greenland. In a study just published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, scientists used satellite gravity data to measure changes in Greenland’s ice mass balance from April 2002 to August 2011. The researchers estimate Greenland is losing almost 200 gigatons of ice per year. It takes 300 gigatons of water to raise sea levels by 1 millimeter, so Greenland is currently contributing about 0.66 mm of sea-level rise per year. At that rate, Greenland will contribute 6.6 centimeters of sea level rise over the 21st century, or less than 3 inches. Apocalypse not.

Sen. Whitehouse concludes by castigating Republicans for inveighing against unchecked entitlement spending and the fiscal burdens it imposes on “our children and grandchildren” while turning a blind eye to the perils climate change inflicts on future generations. But such behavior is not contradictory if the risk of fiscal chaos is both (a) more real and imminent than Al Gore’s “planetary emergency” and (b) more fixable within the policy-relevant future.

Here are two facts Sen. Whitehouse should contemplate. First, even if the U.S. were to stop emitting all CO2 tomorrow, the impact on global temperatures would be a reduction of “approximately 0.08°C by the year 2050 and 0.17°C by the year 2100 — amounts that are, for all intents and purposes, negligible,” notes Chip Knappenberger, whose calculations are based on IPCC climate sensitivity assumptions. Similarly, a study in Nature Climate Change concludes that aggressive climate change ”mitigation measures, even an abrupt switch to zero emissions, have practically no effect on sea level over the coming 50 years and only a moderate effect on sea level by 2100.”

Whether under a carbon tax, cap-and-trade, or EPA regulation, the U.S. would keep emitting billions of tons of CO2 annually for a long time. So whatever climate policies Sen. Whitehouse thinks Republicans should support would have no discernible impact on climate change risk. The costs of such policies would vastly exceed the benefits. Rejecting policies that are all pain for no gain is exactly what the custodians of America’s economic future are supposed to do.

A new study conducted by Price Waterhouse Cooper (PwC) for the National Council of Chain Restaurants (NCCR) estimates the impact of the federal Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) on the chain restaurant industry.

PwC used the following research strategy. First, PwC examined 11 public and private sector studies estimating the extent to which the RFS increases ethanol utilization beyond what would occur in a free market. Estimates range from an additional 1.0 billion gallons per year at the low end to an additional 6.0 billion gallons per year at the high end. Next, PwC estimated the impacts of these RFS-driven increases in ethanol consumption on the demand for and price of corn and other agricultural commodities. Then, PwC combined these price impact estimates with survey information on chain restaurant food commodity purchases.

Here are the results.

If the RFS in 2015 increases annual ethanol consumption by 6 billion gallons (“Scenario I”), quick service restaurants are projected to spend an additional $2.5 billion (10% of major food commodity spending) and full service restaurants an additional $691 million (8.9%). Costs at a typical restaurant increase by $18,190 in quick service restaurants and $17,195 in full service restaurants.

If the RFS in 2015 increases annual ethanol consumption by 1 billion gallons (“Scenario II”), quick service restaurants are projected to spend an additional $393 million per year (1.6% of major food commodity spending) and full service restaurants an additional $110 million (1.4%). Costs at a typical restaurant increase by $2,894 in quick service restaurants and $2,736 in full service restaurants.

Of course, it’s not just the restaurants that will bear those costs. Their customers will pay higher prices too.

Below are some charts and graphs from the study that provide more detail.

Corn consumption for ethanol has increased dramatically since the RFS was enacted in 2005. In 2010-2011, ethanol consumed more corn than livestock agriculture for the first time. As of marketing year 2011-2012, ethanol consumed 45% of the U.S. corn crop.

Corn, wheat, and soy prices in early 2012 were 161%, 116%, and 83% higher, respectively, than they were in Jan. 2003.

Corn is a key input in livestock production, so higher corn prices increase the cost of meat, poultry, and dairy products. Rising corn prices also bid up the price of other crops that compete with corn for customers and/or land. The chart below estimates the RFS’s impact on agricultural commodity prices under Scenarios I and II.

The 2015 RFS is projected to increase annual expenses of a typical quick service restaurant by $18,191 under Scenario I and $2,894 under Scenario II.

The 2015 RFS is projected to increase anual expenses of a typical full service restaurant by $17,195 under Scenario I and $2,736 under Senario II.

Percentages in the charts below give a sense of how much more restaurant customers may have to pay for specific food items due to the RFS.

Big Oil is coming out of the closet.  Exxon Mobil confirmed earlier this month in a Bloomberg Businessweek article that they support a carbon tax. Shell and BP have signed a Climate Price Communiqué that was distributed on 29th November at the eighteenth Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which is meeting in Doha, Qatar, this week and next.

The most obvious reason why big oil and gas companies would support a huge new tax on their own products is that it would kill coal first.  Burning coal emits roughly twice as much carbon dioxide as producing the same amount of energy by burning natural gas.  A $20 a ton of CO2 tax would roughly double the current price of coal used for producing electricity.  That would provide a huge incentive for utilities to switch to natural gas.  Exxon Mobil owns the world’s largest privately-owned reserves of natural gas.  Shell and BP also own huge gas reserves.

The Climate Price Communiqué states that, “Putting a clear, transparent and unambiguous price on carbon emissions must be a core policy objective.”  They mean a global price, but a U. S. domestic carbon tax could fit comfortably into their plans.

The communiqué was organized by the Prince of Wales’s Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change and is managed by the University of Cambridge’s Programme for Sustainability Leadership.  One-hundred forty companies have signed on, but Shell and BP are among just a handful of major corporations.

Amusingly, an article posted on the Center for American Progress’s ThinkProgress web site claimed that the signers were “leading global companies.”   Here’s the list of North American companies:  Actio, Aimia, Bullfrog Power, Business Council for Sustainable Energy, Climate Wedge, Delphi Group, Eco-kraft, EOS Climate, Horizon Capitol Holdings, Events Outside the Box, Mountain Equipment Co-Op, Offsetters, Pacific GPS, Westport, and Wildlife Works.

On a visit to DC’s Cosmos Club last week, I checked out its impressive wall of photographs of club members who had won Nobel Prizes.  I was looking for one of Michael Mann, who, in his defamation complaint against CEI, refers to himself three times as a “Nobel prize recipient”.  (See, for example, page 3 of the Complaint.)

Try as I might, I simply could not find his photo.   I wonder why.  Maybe he’s not a Cosmos Club member.

(I should mention that, if you’re new to this story, there is an alternative explanation.)

The American Lung Association (ALA) is hawking the results of an opinion poll that supposedly shows “American voters support the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) setting stronger fine particle (soot) standards to protect public health.” ALA spokesperson Peter Iwanowicz says the poll ”affirms that the public is sick of soot and wants EPA to set more protective standards.” Missy Egelsky of pollster Greenberg Quinlan Rosner says the survey “clearly indicates that Americans strongly back the EPA taking action now to limit the amount of soot released by oil refineries, power plants and other industrial facilities” (Greenwire, Nov. 29, 2012). This is all spin.

Most Americans probably have opinions about President Obama’s overall record and many have opinions about the Stimulus, Obamacare, the Keystone XL Pipeline, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the auto industry bailout, and whether Congress should cut spending and/or raise taxes. But how many even know the EPA is revising the national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for fine particles (PM2.5)?

So the first thing I notice in the Greenberg Quinlan Rosner poll is the absence of an appropriate first question: Please name or describe any major air quality rules the U.S. EPA is expected to complete in the near future? Starting with that question would likely show most people are unaware of the pending NAAQS revision. From which it follows they don’t have an opinion about it (though of course anyone can have an off-the-cuff reaction to anything).

The survey asks a bunch of demographic questions about respondents’ party affiliation, age, gender, and the like, but only two substantive questions. The first is as follows:

As you may know, the EPA is proposing to update air pollution standards by placing stricter limits on the amount of fine particles, also called “soot,” that power plants, oil refineries and other industrial facilities can release. Do you favor or oppose the EPA setting stricter limits on fine particles, also called “soot?”

Of total respondents, 63% were in favor, 30% were opposed. So according to the ALA, the public supports tougher standards by 2 to 1. But since most respondents have probably never heard or thought about the issue until that moment, the results simply confirm what everybody already knows: Most people think air pollution is a bad thing and would prefer to have less of it.

Since what the question elicits from most respondents is their general attitude about air pollution, it is remarkable that 30% answered in the negative. Note too that most of what the public hears about air pollution comes from organizations like the EPA and the ALA, which relentlessly exaggerate  air pollution levels and the associated health risks.

The second substantive question in the poll asks respondents to state their opinion after hearing two statements “some people on both sides of the issue might make”:

(Some/other) people say: Studies indicate that soot is one of the most dangerous and deadly forms of pollution, especially for children, and can cause heart and lung damage and even lead to cancer or premature death. Independent scientists say that setting stronger soot standards will prevent tens of thousands of premature deaths and over 1 million asthma attacks every year, saving American families billions in lower health care costs. The EPA is taking a common sense approach, setting standards that will be easy for polluters to comply with at a minimal cost.

(Some/other) people say: Given the weak economy, now is the worst time for the EPA to enact costly regulations that kill jobs and increase energy costs. These new rules are unrealistic and unattainable. They will lead to higher energy costs for American families, would cost businesses tens of millions of dollars, and would essentially close areas of the country to new or expanded manufacturing businesses, resulting in American jobs being shipped overseas. President Obama shouldn’t be creating new barriers to job creation or increasing energy costs when our country is trying to recover from a recession.

Now that you’ve heard more about this issue let me ask you again, do you favor or oppose the EPA setting stricter limits on fine particles, also called “soot?”

Permit me to translate: Studies indicate that “soot” kills tens of thousands of people and harms children the most. Others say that preventing widespread death, heart attacks, cancer, and asthma will cost a lot of money. Which do you think is more important, saving lives or saving money?

Note also the first statement claims the revised NAAQS “will be easy for polluters to comply with at a minimal cost,” thereby rebutting the central thesis of the second statement in advance. In contrast, the second statement does not dispute the first statement’s main thesis that ”soot is one of the most deadly forms of pollution.” The poll thus give the impression that even the EPA’s critics accept the agency’s interpretation of the relevant science.

Given this loaded and asymmetric framing of the issue, the remarkable thing is that after hearing the pro and con statements, the percentage of respondents favoring the EPA’s proposal actually decreased, falling from 63% to 56%.

One can only wonder what the breakdown would have been had the con statement gone something like this:

(Some/other) people say: The EPA cherry picked among an extensive literature to support its health assessment, ignoring studies that find no correlation between lower soot levels and improved health. The health benefits of the EPA’s proposal are biologically implausible, because fine particles from coal power plants are mostly ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate, and neither is harmful to humans at levels even 10 times higher than the air Americans breathe. This economy-chilling rule will likely do more harm than good to public health, because poverty and unemployment increase the risk of illness and death.

A quibble perhaps, but Ms. Egelsky of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner claims “Americans strongly back” the EPA’s proposal. She should read her own poll! Only 39% of respondents said they “strongly favor” the EPA setting a more stringent soot standard in response to the first substantive question, and only 33% said they “strongly favor” the EPA doing so after hearing the pro and con statements.

What we have here is another attempt to influence public opinion in the guise of reporting it. More voters are likely to support the ALA agenda if they believe (however mistakenly) that most of their neighbors ”strongly back” it too.

The ALA’s press release on the poll urges the public to send President Obama an email asking that he direct the EPA to set a more stringent standard “to protect the public from this dangerous pollutant.” By law, however, it is the EPA administrator’s “judgment” alone that is to determine the stringency of the standard. Legally, the President has no say in the determination. So the ALA email campaign is a call for political interference in an allegedly scientific process.

In reality, of course, political calculation and ideological agenda permeate EPA rulemakings. Nonetheless, at this late date, President Obama likely plays no part in shaping the EPA’s final rule, which is due to be released Dec. 14. Clearly, the point of the email campaign — and the poll — is to provide talking points Obama can use later this month to defend regulatory decisions his administration has already made. The ALA’s email campaign exploits the naivety of simple folk by pretending they can influence the EPA’s decision. But hey, if you’re going to hype air pollution risks and rig opinion polls to favor your agenda, then why not also mislead people about how the sausage is made?

The ALA presents itself as an honest broker of public health information. In reality, the ALA’s advocacy on behalf of the EPA is tainted by a massive conflict of interest. In the words of Junk Science blogger Steve Milloy, ”the American Lung Association is bought-and-paid-for by the EPA.” In the past 10 years, the ALA received $24,750,250 from the EPA, according to the agency’s records. The EPA uses our tax dollars to fund groups like the ALA who then demand that the EPA wield more power and get more of our tax dollars.

Maybe one of these days the media will pay attention to such facts when covering polls sponsored by green advocacy groups.

It’s also high time journalists started wondering why NAAQS revisions seldom (or never) lead to decreased stringency. At the EPA, new science always seems to find that air pollution is harmful at lower concentrations than the agency previously believed. That’s an odd result if each review is genuinely free of bias – kind of like flipping a balanced coin 10 times and always getting “heads.”

There is a pervasive problem with the entire Administrative State, yet I’ve never seen a journalist address it: Agencies are judges in their own cause. The EPA, for example, both develops, adopts, and enforces emission controls and standards and conducts the analyses authorizing or mandating such regulation. That obvious (though seldom acknowledged) conflict of interest inevitably biases agency analyses in favor of ever-increasing regulatory stringency.

With Senators Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) citing Hurricane Sandy as a reason to have another go at climate legislation, to say nothing of the media spin depicting Sandy as punishment for our fuelish ways, it’s useful to look at some actual science.

In a study published in the journal Climatic Change, scientists Michael Chenoweth and Dmitry Divine analyze the history of tropical cyclone activity in the Lesser Antilles from 1638 to 2009. The Lesser Antilles are the string of islands lying along the eastern Caribbean Sea.

The Lesser Antilles intersect the “main development region” for Atlantic hurricane formation, making storm data there “our best source for historical variability of tropical cyclones in the tropical Atlantic in the past three centuries,” the researchers explain.

Using instrumental data on wind speeds going back to 1900 plus wind-force and wind-induced damage reports for earlier periods, Chenoweth and Divine estimate the Lesser Antilles Accumulated Cyclone Energy (LACE) for each year along the 61.5°W meridian from 18 to 25° N latitude.

Storms forming in this area include most that do or could make landfall in the U.S. In the researchers’ words: “About 60% of all tropical cyclones moving from waters off of Africa pass through 61.5°W south of 25.0°N, the remaining 40% either moving north of 25.0°N, dying out or re-curving to the east of 61.5°W.” Chenoweth and Divine note that LACE is “highly correlated” with Carribbean basin-wide Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) since 1899.

So what did they find? In their words: “Our record of tropical cyclone activity reveals no trends in LACE in the best-sampled regions for the past 320 years. Likewise, even in the incompletely sampled region north of the Lesser Antilles there is no trend in either numbers or LACE.”

Chenoweth and Divine do find a “~50–70 year variability in ACE across the 18–25°N transect.” This wave-like pattern ”is possibly associated with the low-frequency variations in the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation (AMO), a mode of SST [sea surface temperature] variability that is global in extent but strongest in the Atlantic.” The scientists consider their data “sufficiently complete to be a reliable record back to 1785 and extends the evidence of this pattern further back in time.”

An obvious implication of the study, although not spelled out by the authors, is that natural variability dominates tropical storm activity in the Atlantic to the point that any global warming influence, if it exists, is still undetectable.

For a more detailed review of the study, visit the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Also informative is World Climate Report’s review of Chenoweth and Divine’s 2008 study on tropical cyclones in the Lesser Antilles.

House Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy have signed a No Climate Tax Pledge. Bad news for those pushing carbon taxes as part of a budget deal. 

Friends of affordable energy can ill-afford complacency, however. The Dumb Party has been known to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, and carbon tax advocates are nothing if not tenacious. So when it comes to carbon taxes, I say kick ‘em while they’re down.

To that end, I excerpt below some insightful comments by several contributors to last week’s National Journal Energy Blog discussion, “Is Washington Ready for a Carbon Tax?”

David Kreutzer (Heritage Foundation) notes the chutzpah of those who, having failed to sell the public on the stealth energy tax called cap-and-trade, now expect the public to buy an open, avowed, unvarnished energy tax:

Once the electorate was made to realize that cap and trade bills (Lieberman-Warner, Waxman-Markey, etc.) were actually taxes on fossil energy, cap and trade became political poison. So it is surprising that an explicit tax on fossil energy is now being pushed in Washington.

Kreutzer then debunks the argument that conservatives should support a “revenue neutral” carbon tax that displaces EPA regulation of greenhouse gases:

The hope among carbon-tax proponents is that they can sugar coat the tax and make it palatable to conservatives, or at least to enough conservatives. This proposed confection has two ingredients. First, the carbon tax is to be a revenue-neutral swap for some even more harmful tax. Second, a carbon tax would obviate the need for regulation of carbon dioxide and for subsidies to low-carbon energy.

“Revenue neutral” is supposed to mean that each dollar raised will cut another tax by a dollar. But with neutrality there is no gravy to spread around to all the special interests—and we are talking about $100s of billions in gravy every year. So revenue neutrality will never happen. . . .

[As for a tax-for-regulation swap:] That logic may work in PowerPoint-filled rooms at think tanks, but not in the proverbial smoke-filled rooms in Congress. If this logic did carry over, then cap and trade also would have eliminated the need for carbon regulation. Instead of reducing regulations, the cap and trade bills added them. For instance, the Waxman-Markey bill went on for nearly 700 pages before it even got to cap and trade.

Just in case there might be some confusion as to whether the left is willing to trade off regulation for a carbon tax, Representative Waxman recently cleared things up: “A carbon tax or a price on carbon would be a strong incentive for the development of new technologies. But because it’s so complicated, I would not support preempting EPA. EPA can assure us that we can actually get the reductions we need.”

Susan Dudley (George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center) explains why key interest groups, regulatory agencies, and politicians would not support a carbon tax that preempts greenhouse gas regulation and cap-and-trade:

Agribusiness interests have been making billions from misguided mandates for renewable fuels, and would fight any attempt to replace them with a carbon tax. Wind and solar technologies, if they really work, would benefit from a carbon tax. But to the extent they can’t compete, they will likely have a strong preference for the direct subsidies they enjoy now.

The regulators who have been using climate concerns to seek greater authority to control the economy will see little to like in a simple carbon tax. And the market-mimicking virtues of a carbon tax will not be realized unless Congress is willing to reverse the Supreme Court’s decision to apply the Clean Air Act to GHGs, to repeal DOT’s automobile fuel economy standards and DOE’s appliance efficiency standards, and to clean out the morass of other regulations that purport to control our energy use. Opposition to a tax may be especially strong from state regulators, such as those in California, who have begun to sell GHG allowances and will oppose any policy that would convert those revenues into federal revenues.

The costs of any program aimed at reducing GHG emissions will cause prices of goods and services to rise, but for politicians, the advantage of the current regulation-subsidy patchwork or a cap-and-trade system is that these higher prices are not easily traced to climate policies, or to the politicians responsible for them. A transparent carbon tax, in addition to reducing emissions more cost-effectively than the alternatives, would allow Americans openly to weigh the tradeoffs between higher costs and environmental benefits.

The final nail in the carbon-tax coffin is that with it would come demands for exemptions, rebates, credits, and all manner of loopholes, in addition to a wish list of new spending. If the revenues are used as they should be – to offset other taxes and reduce the deficit – then legislators and the administration will not get to spend them on vocal constituencies and pet projects. What’s the fun in that? Politicians who habitually ask themselves “whose votes am I buying if I support this bill?” will not find a persuasive answer in a clean and simple carbon tax.

Jim Kerr (McGuirreWoods LLP) delves into the devilish details that would have to be worked out before the usual suspects could agree on carbon tax legislation:

While economists may see a carbon tax as simple to enact, that will certainly not be the case. A carbon tax raises precisely the same difficult and complicated issues as a cap-and-trade system. Because both approaches put a price on carbon, both will have substantial real world impacts that have to be addressed. What price level would a carbon tax start at? How much would it increase and how fast? Would some revenues be used to further carbon reduction and energy efficiency efforts, how much and how? How will electric power consumers be protected from rate shocks? How will low income consumers be protected from disproportionate impacts to their disposable incomes? How will carbon-intensive industries be protected from competition and job losses? How will offsets (identified as a key cost containment issue) be recognized?

The biggest political issues to be resolved will involve geographic inequities, where regions that are more heavily dependent on higher carbon fuels will have to pay more to decarbonize their economies, and also pay higher taxes until those efforts bear fruit. Those regions may also object to a uniform redistribution of carbon tax revenues (e.g., for deficit reduction) where they have paid in far more in carbon taxes than other regions.

In the Waxman-Markey debates, many of these issues were addressed by complicated agreements on allowance allocations, and other aspects of the program. In a carbon tax system, they could similarly be addressed though tax credits or rebates, as appropriate, but only after difficult debates, none of which have begun. Thus, although the types of issues in play, and the alternatives available, are similar as between a carbon tax and a carbon cap, that does not make the decisions on these issues any easier.

Paul Cicio (Industrial Energy Consumers of America) warns of the special peril carbon taxes pose to U.S. manufacturers:

Since 2000, we have lost some 5,000,000 jobs and shutdown about 54,000 manufacturing facilities. For perspective, in 2010 and 2011 we increased about 500,000 jobs – so you can appreciate how far we need to go to re-build the manufacturing sector. Because of our failure to compete, the trade deficit in 2011 finished at $445 billion. Policy makers need to understand that a carbon tax is inconsistent with the potential for a manufacturing renaissance.

Only now, because of low natural gas costs are we beginning to see billions in capital investment announcements that could usher in a tremendous period of economic growth, jobs and exports. A carbon tax would directly increase energy costs, reduce competitiveness and raise great uncertainties toward this new investment.

A $15 per ton carbon tax would increase manufacturing costs by about $17 billion per year and a $50 per ton carbon tax by about $56 billion per year. These are significant increases in costs.

Charles Drevna (American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers) argues that carbon taxes would still be regressive even if combined with feebates and cuts in other taxes:

A reduction in income tax rates won’t help 70 percent of households in the lowest income distribution or 36 percent in the second-lowest quintile. Income tax or payroll tax rebates are equally problematic since it would be of no value to those who don’t pay those specific taxes. Similarly, a payroll tax rebate would fail to reach 46 percent of households in the lowest income bracket. The CBO cautioned, “Not everyone – especially members of low-income households and retirees – pay payroll taxes or files an income tax return. But people would need to file a return to participate in a rebate program based on the income tax system.”

Households could of course file an income tax return just to receive the rebate, but we know from experience that millions won’t. For example, in 2008 as part of the Economic Stimulus Act, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated a payout of $106.7 billion in stimulus funds, but only $94.1 billion was distributed. A lot of money was left on the table and the same will hold true should Congress pass a carbon tax. Defenders of a carbon tax expect the very same body that managed the country right into a record deficit to now manage what could be the largest federal rebate program ever enacted.

Bill O’Keefe (John Marshall Institute) views the carbon tax campaign as a triumph of hope over experience:

[Al Gore's proposal in 1993 for a BTU tax on energy] became a catalyst for a broad based coalition representing large and small businesses, transportation, manufacturing, agriculture, building trades, and even social service organizations that need gasoline and heating oil to care for the poor and homeless. The work of the coalition captured a lot of attention from the media. Its grassroots activities made clear to members of Congress that they should support the tax at their own peril. Since, as Samuel Johnson once observed, there is nothing like a hanging to concentrate the mind, Democrat support for the tax vanished. With outright defeat clear, the Administration sued for peace and the BTU became a relic of flawed policy.

BTU became a verb and members of Congress wanted to avoid being BTU-ed, but in 1994 voters enacted retribution and turned Congress over to republicans.

The economy is in worse shape today than it was in 1993, and it could easily slip back into recession. . . .A small carbon tax at the outset would be easy to increase in small increments. Then in time a small tax will become a big tax. Anyone who doubts this should study the VAT experience in Europe. Rates go up; never down. Even today as they face economic catastrophe, Spain and Greece are considering raising their VAT above 20 percent. . . .We can do better than create the son of a BTU!

Last week on National Journal’s Energy Experts Blog, 16 wonks addressed the question: ”Is Washington Ready for a Carbon Tax?” Your humble servant argued that Washington is not ready — unless Republicans are willing to commit political suicide. That’s no reason for complacency, because spendaholics have on occasion gulled the Dumb Party into providing bi-partisan cover for unpopular tax hikes. President G.H.W. Bush’s disastrous repudiation of his ‘read-my-lips, no-new-taxes’ campaign pledge is the best known example.

To help avoid such debacles in the future, I will recap the main points of my National Journal blog commentary. Later this week, I’ll excerpt insightful comments by other contributors.

Nearly all Republicans in Congress have signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, a promise not to increase the net tax burden on their constituents. Although a “revenue neutral” carbon tax is theoretically possible, the sudden interest in carbon taxes is due to their obvious potential to feed Washington’s spending addiction. If even one dollar of the revenues from a carbon tax is used for anything except cutting other taxes, the scheme is a net tax increase and a Pledge violation. Wholesale promise-breaking by GOP leaders would outrage party’s activist base. 

Even if the Taxpayer Protection Pledge did not exist, the GOP is currently the anti-tax, pro-energy alternative to a Democratic leadership that is aggressively anti-energy and pro-tax. Endorsing a massive new energy tax would damage the product differentiation that gives people a reason to vote Republican. Recognizing these realities, House GOP leaders recently signed a ‘no climate tax’ pledge.

That’s good news. But this is a season of fiscal panic and I was there (in 1990) when the strength of Republicans failed. Perhaps the best time to kick carbon taxes is when they are down. So let’s review additional reasons to oppose a carbon tax.

Carbon taxes are regressive, imposing a larger percentage burden on low-income households. If Republicans support a carbon tax in return for cuts in corporate or capital gains taxes (a popular idea in some circles), they will be pilloried — this time fairly — for seeking to benefit the rich at the expense of the poor.

If, on the other hand, the tax provides “carbon dividends” to offset the impact of higher energy prices on poor households, it will create a new class of welfare dependents. Guess which party is better at organizing people on welfare?

Carbon taxes pose an existential threat to the development of North America’s vast coal, oil, and natural gas deposits — one of the few bright spots in the economy. The core purpose of a carbon tax is to reduce and, ultimately, eliminate carbon doxide-emitting activities. The tax ‘works’ by shrinking the economic base on which it is levied. To keep revenues up, carbon tax rates must continually increase as emissions decline. Likely result: an exodus of carbon-related capital, jobs, and emissions (“carbon leakage”). Problem: Nobody knows how to run a modern economy on cellulose, wind turbines, and solar panels. Bipartisanship on carbon taxes means co-ownership of U.S. economic decline.

In umpteen hearings on the Solyndra debacle, Republicans excoriated the Obama administration for trying to pick energy market winners and losers. A carbon tax is an even more ambitious green industrial policy than the $34.5 billion in loan guarantees  lavished by the Department of Energy (DOE) on a few dozen renewable energy projects. Carbon taxes attempt to pick and losers across the entire economy, handicapping all firms that produce or rely on carbon-based energy. Indeed, central to Solyndra’s business plan and DOE Secy. Chu’s green tech strategy was the bet that Congress would enact cap-and-trade, the regulatory surrogate for a carbon tax.

Some economists say government should tax ‘bads’ like emissions rather than ‘goods’ like labor and capital. This is sloppy thinking. In technical economic terms, only finished products and services are ‘goods.’ Labor and capital are inputs, production factors, or costs. Energy too is a key input. Without energy, most labor and capital would be idle or not even exist. About 83% of U.S. energy comes from carbon-based fuels. So a carbon tax also taxes what these economists loosely call ‘goods.’ Pretending that carbon taxes only tax emissions and nothing of value is free-lunch economics — a recipe for failure and worse.

Some speculate about a grand bargain in which carbon taxes replace carbon regulations — everything from the EPA’s greenhouse gas emission standards to California’s cap-and-trade program to State-level renewable electricity mandates. The EPA, the California Air Resources Board, the major environmental organizations, and the renewable energy lobbies have spent decades building the regulatory programs they administer or influence. They want to add carbon taxes to carbon regulation, not substitute one for the other. Talk a grand bargain is a ploy designed to lure gullible Republicans to the negotiating table. Few if any of the Left’s regulatory sacred cows would be traded away. In the meantime, carbon tax negotiations would divide GOP leaders from their rank and file and demoralize the party’s activist base.

The backlash against GOP leaders’ complicity would be swift and severe. Yet for all the economic pain inflicted and political damage incurred, they would accomplish no discernible environmental gain. As hurricane expert Roger Pielke Jr. points out, even under IPCC assumptions, changes in energy policy “wouldn’t have a discernible impact on future disasters for the better part of a century or more.” Similarly, also using IPCC assumptions, Chip Knappenberger of the Cato Institute Center for the Study of Science calculates that even if the U.S. eliminated all CO2 emissions tomorrow, the impact on global temperatures would be a reduction ”of approximately 0.08°C by the year 2050 and 0.17°C by the year 2100 — amounts that are, for all intents and purposes, negligible.”

Under a carbon tax, the U.S. would keep emitting billions of tons of carbon dioxide annually for a long time – otherwise the tax wouldn’t raise much revenue. So the notion that carbon taxes can measurably reduce extreme weather risk or climate change impacts within any policy-relevant timeframe is ludicrous.

Note: A nearly identical version of this column appeared last week in Forbes Online. I am reposting it here with many additional hyperlinks so that readers may more easily access the evidence supporting my conclusions.

The November 2012 elections ensure that President Obama’s war on coal will continue for at least two more years. The administration’s preferred M.O. has been for the EPA to ‘enact’ anti-coal policies that Congress would reject if such measures were introduced as legislation and put to a vote. Had Gov. Romney won the presidential race and the GOP gained control of the Senate, affordable energy advocates could now go on offense and pursue a legislative strategy to roll back various EPA global warming regulations, air pollution regulations, and restrictions on mountaintop mining. But Romney lost and Democrats gained two Senate seats.

Consequently, defenders of free-market energy are stuck playing defense and their main weapon now is litigation. This is a hard slog because courts usually defer to agency interpretations of the statutes they administer. But sometimes petitioners win. In August, the U.S. Court of Appeals struck down the EPA’s Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), a regulation chiefly targeting coal-fired power plants. The Court found that the CSAPR exceeded the agency’s statutory authority. Similarly, in March, the Court ruled that the EPA exceeded its authority when it revoked a Clean Water Act permit for Arch Coal’s Spruce Mine No. 1 in Logan County, West Virginia.

A key litigation target in 2013 is EPA’s proposal to establish greenhouse gas (GHG) “new source performance standards” (NSPS) for power plants. This so-called carbon pollution standard is not based on policy-neutral health or scientific criteria. Rather, the EPA contrived the standard so that commercially-viable coal plants cannot meet it. The rule effectively bans investment in new coal generation.

We Can Win This One

Prospects for overturning the rule are good for three main reasons.

(1) Banning new coal electric generation is a policy Congress has not authorized and would reject if proposed in legislation and put to a vote. Once again the EPA is acting beyond its authority.

The proposed “carbon pollution” standard requires new fossil-fuel electric generating units (EGUs) to emit no more than 1,000 lbs of carbon dioxide (CO2) per megawatt hour (MWh). About 95% of all natural gas combined cycle power plants already meet the standard, according to the EPA. No existing coal power plants come close; even the most efficient, on average, emit 1,800 lbs CO2/MWh.

A coal power plant equipped with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology could meet the standard, but the levelized cost of new coal plants already exceeds that of new natural gas combined cycle plants, and “today’s CCS technologies would add around 80% to the cost of electricity for a new pulverized coal (PC) plant, and around 35% to the cost of electricity for a new advanced gasification-based (IGCC) plant,” the EPA acknowledges.

In short, the EPA has proposed a standard no economical coal plant can meet. Not surprising given President Obama’s longstanding ambition to “bankrupt” anyone who builds a new coal power plant and his vow to find other ways of “skinning the cat” after the 2010 election-day slaughter of 29 cap-and-trade Democrats. But the big picture is hard to miss: Congress never signed off on this policy.

The only time Congress even considered imposing GHG performance standards on power plants was during the debate on the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill. Section 216 of Waxman-Markey would have established NSPS requiring new coal power plants to reduce CO2 emissions by 50% during 2009-2020 and by 65% after 2020 – roughly what the EPA is now proposing. Although Waxman-Markey narrowly passed in the House, it became so unpopular as “cap-and-tax” that Senate leaders pulled the plug on companion legislation.

Team Obama is attempting to accomplish through the regulatory backdoor what it could not achieve through the legislative front door. The “carbon pollution” rule is an affront to the separation of powers.

(2) The “carbon pollution” standard is regulation by misdirection – an underhanded ‘bait-and-fuel-switch.’

In Massachusetts v. EPA (April 2007), the Supreme Court held that GHGs are “air pollutants” for regulatory purposes. This spawned years of speculation about whether the EPA would define “best available control technology” (BACT) standards for “major” GHG emitters so stringently that utilities could not obtain pre-construction permits unless they built natural gas power plants instead of new coal power plants.

In March 2011, the EPA published a guidance document assuring stakeholders that BACT for CO2 would not require a permit applicant “to switch to a primary fuel type” different from the fuel type the applicant planned to use for its primary combustion process. The agency specifically disavowed plans to “redefine the source [category]” such that coal boilers are held to the same standard as gas turbines.

The EPA reiterated this assurance in a Q&A document accompanying the guidance. One question asks: “Does this guidance say that fuel switching (coal to natural gas) should be selected as BACT for a power plant?” The EPA gives a one-word response: “No.”

This bears directly on the legal propriety of the “carbon pollution” standard. In general, NSPS are less stringent than BACT. NSPS provide the “floor” or minimum emission control standard for determining an emitter’s BACT requirements. BACT is intended to push individual sources to make deeper emission cuts than the category-wide NSPS requires.

Yet despite the EPA’s assurance that BACT, although tougher than NSPS, would not require fuel switching or redefine coal power plants into the same source category as natural gas power plants, the “carbon pollution” rule does exactly that.

In April 2011, the House passed H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, sponsored by Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), by a vote of 255-172. H.R. 910 would overturn all of the EPA’s GHG regulations except for those the auto and trucking industries had already made investments to comply with. Sen. James Inhofe’s companion bill (McConnell Amdt. 183) failed by one vote. In June 2010, Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R-Alaska) Congressional Review Act resolution to strip the agency of its Mass v. EPA-awarded power to regulate GHGs failed by four votes. One or both of those measures might have passed had the EPA come clean about its agenda and stated in 2009 that it would eventually propose GHG performance standards no affordable coal power plant can meet.

(3) The “carbon pollution” rule is weirdly contorted, flouting basic standards of reasonableness and candor.

Under the Clean Air Act, an emission performance standard is supposed to reflect “the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of best system of emission reduction” that has been “adequately demonstrated.” The EPA picked 1,000 lbs CO2/MWh as the NSPS for new fossil-fuel EGUs because that is the “degree of emission limitation achievable through natural gas combined cycle generation.”

But natural gas combined cycle is not a system of emission reduction. It is a type of power plant. The EPA is saying with a straight face that natural gas combined cycle is an emission reduction system that has been adequately demonstrated for coal power plants. By that ‘logic,’ zero-carbon nuclear-, hydro-, wind-, or solar-electric generation is an emission reduction system that has been adequately demonstrated for natural gas combined cycle.

A coal power plant could meet the standard by installing CCS, but, as the EPA acknowledges, CCS is too costly to qualify as “adequately demonstrated.” The only practical way for utilities to comply is to build new gas turbines instead of new coal boilers. This is the first time the EPA has defined a performance standard such that one type of facility can comply only by being something other than what it is.

The EPA sets performance standards for specific categories of industrial sources. A coal boiler is different from a gas turbine, and up to now the agency reasonably regulated them as different source categories, under different parts of the Code of Federal Regulations – Subpart Da for coal boilers, Subpart KKKK for gas turbines. The EPA now proposes to regulate coal boilers and gas turbines as a single source category — “fossil-fuel EGUs” — under a new subpart numbered TTTT. But only for CO2! Coal boilers and gas turbines will continue to be regulated as separate source categories for criteria and toxic pollutants under Subparts Da and KKKK.

Why hold coal boilers and gas turbines to different standards for those pollutants? The EPA’s answer: “This is because although coal-fired EGUs have an array of control options for criteria and toxic air pollutants to choose from, those controls generally do not reduce their criteria and air toxic emissions to the level of conventional emissions from natural gas-fired EGUs.”

The same reasoning argues even more strongly against imposing a single GHG standard on coal boilers and natural gas turbines. Coal boilers do not have an “array of control options” for CO2 emissions, and have no “adequately demonstrated” option for reducing CO2 emissions to the level of gas-fired EGUs. Subpart TTTT is an administrative contortion concocted to kill the future of coal generation.

Why Care Even If You Don’t Mine or Combust Coal for a Living

At this point you may be wondering why anyone outside the coal industry should care about this cockamamie rule. There are several reasons.

First and most obviously, banning new coal generation could increase electric rates and make prices more volatile. For generations, coal has supplied half or more of U.S. electricity, and still provides the single largest share. The “carbon pollution” standard is risky because coal’s chief competitor, natural gas, has a history of price volatility and a future clouded by the environmental movement’s hostility to hydraulic fracturing, the technology transforming gas from a costly shrinking resource to an affordable expanding resource.

The “carbon pollution” standard itself could put the kibosh on new gas-fired generation if the EPA concludes, as Cornell researchers contend, that fugitive methane emissions from hydraulic fracturing make gas as carbon-intensive as coal.

The EPA is also developing GHG performance standards for refineries. “Unconventional” oil production from shale and oil sands is booming in North America, creating thousands of jobs, generating billions of dollars in tax revenues, and reducing U.S. dependence on OPEC oil. But unconventional oil production is energy-intensive and therefore carbon-intensive. It is unknown whether or how the forthcoming GHG standard for refineries will address the carbon intensity of unconventional oil. What we do know is that the environmental groups who litigated the EPA into proposing these standards are arch foes of unconventional oil.

In any event, the “carbon pollution” standard for power plants is just the start of a regulatory trajectory, not its end point. The EPA’s settlement agreement with environmental groups and state attorneys general obligates the agency to extend the standard to “modified” coal power plants and establish emission “guidelines” for non-modified units.

Moreover, the standard sets a precedent for promulgating NSPS for other GHG source categories, and for contriving new source categories (e.g. “electric generating units”) to hammer natural gas. As indicated above, if gas can set the standard for coal, then wind and solar can set the standard for gas. And at some point the refinery standard could undermine the profitability of unconventional oil. Although initially directed against new coal, the standard puts all fossil-energy production in an ever-tightening regulatory noose.

Pandora’s NAAQS

Taking a longer view, the “carbon pollution” rule moves the U.S. economy one step closer to the ultimate environmental policy disaster: national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for GHGs.

In December 2009, the EPA issued a rule under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act declaring that GHG emissions from new motor vehicles endanger public health and welfare. The endangerment rule was both prerequisite and trigger for the agency’s adoption, in January 2011, of first-ever GHG motor vehicle standards. The agency now claims that it need not issue a new and separate endangerment finding under Section 211 to adopt first-ever GHG performance standards for power plants, because subsequent science confirms and strengthens its Section 202 finding.

An implication of this argument is that the EPA need not make a new endangerment finding to promulgate NAAQS for GHGs under Section 108, because the Section 202 finding would suffice for that as well.

Section 108 of the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to initiate a NAAQS rulemaking for “air pollution” from “numerous or diverse mobile or stationary sources” if such pollution “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare.” Carbon dioxide obviously comes from numerous and diverse mobile and stationary sources, and the EPA has already determined that the associated “air pollution” – the “elevated concentrations” of GHGs in the atmosphere – endangers public health and welfare. Logically, the EPA must establish NAAQS for GHGs set below current atmospheric concentrations.

Eco-litigants have already put this ball in play. The Center for Biological Diversity and 350.Org petitioned the EPA more than two years ago to establish NAAQS for CO2 at 350 parts per million (roughly 40 parts per million below current concentrations) and for other GHGs at pre-industrial levels.

The potential for mischief is hard to exaggerate. Not even a worldwide depression that permanently lowers global economic output and emissions to, say, 1970 levels, would stop CO2 concentrations from rising over the remainder of the century. Yet the Clean Air Act requires States to adopt implementation plans adequate to attain primary (health-based) NAAQS within five or at most 10 years. A CO2 NAAQS set at 350 parts per million would require a level of economic sacrifice vastly exceeding anything contemplated by the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill or the Copenhagen climate treaty, which aimed to stabilize CO2-equivalent emissions at 450 parts per million by 2050.

The EPA has yet to decide on the CBD-350.Org petition. Perhaps this is another case of punting unpopular regulatory decisions until Obama’s second term. The one instance where the administration addressed the issue is not reassuring. In a brief submitted to the Supreme Court in American Electric Power v. Connecticut, the Obama Justice Department described Section 108 as one of the provisions making the Clean Air Act a “comprehensive regulatory framework” for climate change policy.

Ultimately, only the people’s representatives can protect coal generation, hydraulic fracturing, and unconventional oil from hostile regulation. But nixing the “carbon pollution” standard would be a big setback to both the EPA and the eco-litigation fraternity, and would help safeguard America’s energy options until a future Congress reins in the agency.