Politics

Eleven States and 14 environmental pressure groups filed a legal brief on June 22 as part of a lawsuit that argues that the Clean Air Act gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. 

These States and groups are unhappy with EPAs rejection of a petition from the International Center for Technology Assessment that seeks to require EPA to regulate GHG emissions from new cars and trucks.  The attorneys for the plaintiff wrote, EPA’s conclusion that it lacks authority to set motor vehicle emission standards for greenhouse gases contravenes the [Clean Air] Act’s plain language.  They further argue that the Act gives EPA the authority to regulate any air pollutant that may adversely affect public health or welfare.

EPA has argued that even if the federal government did have the authority to impose regulations on cars and trucks, it would be the responsibility of the Department of Transportation.  However, the pro-federal regulation attorneys argue, There is no such conflict because Congress explicitly acknowledged that such statutory overlap would occur, and in this case compliance with any Clean Air Act emission standards would have no effect on automobile manufacturers ability to comply with [the Energy Policy and Conservation Act].

The oral arguments in the case are slated for next spring in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.  Among those suing the EPA are California, Massachusetts, Greenpeace, and the Sierra Club.  Arguments against the suit (largely accepted by EPA) have been led by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, along with the American Petroleum Institute, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, and the U. S. Chamber of Commerce.  (Greenwire, June 23)

Interviewed by the Associated Press on June 22, American Electric Powers (AEP) president, Michael Morris, was keen to stress that the world is in desperate need of greenhouse gas controls to curtail global warming.  Morris explained that We are more than prepared to go forward.  We are absolutely dedicated to improving the air performance at our power plants.

Furthermore, Morris believes that a plan much in line with the Kyoto Protocol is needed to set an international standard for emissions.  However, he added that the standard must be fair to American workers.  Morris also believes that the inclusion of developing countries like India and China must be mandatory in order to prevent them from gaining an advantage over the United States.  This echoes the Byrd-Hagel resolution adopted 95-0 by the Senate in 1997.

Morris concluded by explaining that AEP was on their side when speaking of environmentalists demanding stricter standards.  However, those environmentalists do not necessarily feel that AEP is on theirs.  Some have said that AEP still needs to do much more.

Coal-fired plants, which emit the most carbon dioxide of any power-generating option, account for 65 percent of AEPs generating capacity.  AEP has five million customers in the 11 States it serves from Michigan to Texas.  This interview comes at a time when AEP is involved in a lawsuit accusing the company of breaking the regulations of the Clean Air Act.  The suit charges AEP with not installing modern pollution controls at 11 of its plants.

European bureaucrats are bitter about U.S. policies on climate change and may voice this opinion at the Group of Eight (G8) meeting in the United Kingdom next year.  Hans Verolme, a Dutch national employed as senior environment advisor at the British Embassy in Washington said at a seminar held by the European Institute on June 21 to discuss the new European emissions trading scheme, Its quite obvious that my prime minister is disappointed at the state of play in the United States (we presume he means Tony Blair and not Jan Peter Balkenende) and the U.S. should watch [its] space at the G8 meeting.

Robert Donkers, counselor for environmental affairs at the European Commissions Washington, D.C. delegation, gave a strongly negative assessment of U. S. environmental policies at the European Institute event.  He supports working directly with some States on the European Unions new Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).  He also said, We are not so inclined to think that technology will give us all the solutions.  Luckily, we are converging with some States in the U.S.  Donkers concluded by advising that it was high time to end the short term cowboy economy (in the U. S.) and to find common ground again with the EU. 

In contrast, Andrei Marcu, president and chief executive officer of the International Emission Trading Association, cautioned European officials from relying too heavily on emissions trading to achieve reductions, stating that technology has to provide at the end of the day the solution and that trading alone is not a solution. (Greenwire, June 22).

Bertrand Collomb, the chairman of French cement maker Lafarge and also the new chairman of the World Business Council on Sustainable Development, also expressed concerns about the success of the ETS and about the EUs use of the precautionary principle.

The head of the Chicago Climate Exchange, Richard Sandor, proclaimed that his exchange for trading emissions allowances was already a success and that the EU only needed to follow the example he had created.  Former U. S. Ambassador Richard Benedick, now with Battelle Pacific Northwest National Laboratories, replied that Sandors claims had the faint whiff of the snake oil salesman.

The new chairman of the board of Shell Oil, Ron Oxburgh, Oxburgh told the Guardian in an interview published on June 17 that Shell needs to take into accountthe greenhouse effect and global warming.   He is really very worried for the planet  ecause of the activities of companies such as his.

Oxburgh continued: No one can be comfortable at the prospect of continuing to pump out the amounts of carbon that we are at present.  He believes the only feasible solution is carbon sequestration and fears that, If we dont have sequestration I see very little hope for the world.

Oxburgh is as concerned about climate change as David King, the governments chief science advisor, who said climate change was a bigger threat than terrorism.  You cant slip a piece of paper between David King and me on this position, said Oxburgh.  

Oxburghs appeasement, however, has not gone down well with environmental groups determined to suppress the use of fossil fuels.  Byrony Worthington, a climate campaigner with Friends of the Earth, believes Oxburghs statements are public relations spin and that, [Oxburgh has] done quite a clever job by making it clear hes concerned but at the same time not pledging to do anything about it.

The Guardians correspondent David Adam, however, argued that, judging by Oxburghs history of honesty and his major and at times universally unpopular reforms while rector of Imperial College London, this is not a PR move.  Adam suggested that Oxburghs comments might be more direct than the PR people further down [his] building might appreciate.  (Guardian, June 17).  Or Shells lawyers, we might add.  Oxburghs astonishing comments would seem to be an invitation to massive liability lawsuits.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) on June 14 released its draft plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the states automobiles.  It calls for lowering auto emissions by 30 percent below 2002 levels by 2014.  The plan immediately generated significant objections to its cost and constitutionality.

CARB had been charged by a law passed in 2002 with achieving the maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of emissions beginning in 2006, with all new vehicles meeting the rules by 2009.  The proposals would create two vehicle classes:  one consisting of light trucks and passenger vehicles, the other of heavier trucks.  The 30 percent reduction in GHG emissions would be achieved in two phases, one from 2009-2011, the other from 2012-2014.  Manufacturers would gain credit for producing low emissions vehicles before 2008.

CARB estimates that the regulations will reduce CO2 emissions in the state by 85,900 tons per day in 2020 and by 143,300 tons per day in 2030.  The board admits that the new law will raise the price of a vehicle by $328 in 2009 and by over $1000 in 2015.

Manufacturers point out that car buyers regularly put fuel economy down their list of priorities.  Eron Shosteck of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers told the New York Times (June 11), Its still behind cup holders.   Others have pointed out that CARBs assumptions both on costs and on fuel economy are purely theoretical.

The move also faces legal challenges.  According to Greenwire (June 15), Both industry officials and the Bush administration have indicated for months they may sue on the grounds that California is seeking to regulate fuel economy, a responsibility reserved for the federal government. But California‘s new governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), vowed during his gubernatorial campaign to defend A.B. 1493 against legal challenges.

Several States have adopted Californias plans for reducing fuel use.  Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont have all passed legislation to follow California‘s lead.  CARB will accept public comments until July 7 before reporting to Gov. Schwarzenegger before 2005.