GOP advances in attempts to "repeal" climate science

While the Clean Air Act did not include greenhouse gases on its list of harmful air pollutants when first enacted, it does contain several provisions that require the Agency to update its standards as new scientific evidence becomes available. The Act also gives the EPA the authority to regulate new air pollutants if those pollutants are deemed harmful to public welfare.

In 2007, during George W. Bush’s second term, the Supreme Court heard arguments on these issues. The EPA argued that the Clean Air Act did not give it the authority to regulate vehicle emissions, while several states argued that it did and required regulatory action on the part of the Agency. The Court ruled against the Bush-era EPA, writing: “On the merits, the first question is whether…the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions…in the event that it forms a “judgment” that such emissions contribute to climate change. We have little trouble concluding that it does.”

Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens added that the Court found “nothing suggesting that Congress meant to curtail EPA’s power to treat greenhouse gases as air pollutants.”

The Court then ordered the Agency to judge whether carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases contribute to global warming and, if so, to regulate them accordingly by setting standards and issuing permits. Two years later, the Agency issued its “endangerment” findings in which it concluded that greenhouse gases are harmful and contribute to climate change (the endangerment findings that would be “repealed” under the bill). The process of issuing permits began earlier this year.

“The argument that the EPA has somehow overstepped its authority here has no basis in fact,” said the NRDC’s Doniger. “Those members of Congress who claim that EPA or the Supreme Court made this up are just plain wrong. The Congress wrote the law and the Supreme Court interpreted it correctly and the EPA is now following it after a long period of paying it no mind.”

Bill Snape, senior counsel with the Center for Biological Diversity, agreed. “The legal part of this is really not that complicated,” he said.

Remapping Debate made repeated requests for comments from six of the Republicans and seven of the Democrats in the House and Senate who justified their vote by saying that the EPA had overstepped its authority under the Clean Air Act (or who had previously made such claims). None took the opportunity to explain their positions.

Covering one’s tracks

For some members of Congress, it has apparently become preferable to focus attention on making arguments against the EPA than to focus on rejecting climate science on the merits.

For example, when asked by Remapping Debate why the provision to repeal the EPA’s greenhouse gas findings was in the legislation, Robert Sumner, the press secretary for Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY), who co-sponsored the House bill, did not say that Whitfield included it because he believed that the findings were erroneous.  Instead, he said that Whitfield justified the provision on the basis that the findings were “the predicate for all of EPA’s actions in this area,” and that Whitfield believes that the Agency should have Congressional authorization before going forward with its regulations.

When pressed as to whether that means that Whitfield accepts the EPA’s scientific findings, Sumner said, “This isn’t about the science. It’s about the Clean Air Act not being an appropriate vehicle for regulating greenhouse gas emissions.”

When pressed further on Whitfield’s beliefs on the existence on climate change caused by human activities, Sumner said simply, “We’ll defer to our previous statements.”

While EPA needed to make findings as a predicate to action, no one suggests that Congress does not have the power to legislate limits on actions to control global warming without having to undo EPA’s findings. But Bill Snape argued it would be more difficult for lawmakers to justify their decision to roll back the EPA’s authority if they left the scientific justification for action in place.

Snape said, however, that it was increasingly apparent that much of the public and many lawmakers do not accept the denial of climate science as a basis for refusing to regulate emissions.

“I don’t think there’s much of a stomach for arguing over [the reality of human-caused climate change] anymore,” he said.

That, Snape said, explains why the House bill contained the provision designed in part to suggest Congress concern about climate change.

Remapping Debate spoke with some Democrats who do accept both the EPA’s findings and its authority to act on those findings. Jake Thompson, a spokesperson for Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, said that Nelson does not dispute either point:  “He thinks the amount of carbon should be reduced, obviously.” But, Thompson said, Nelson voted to strip EPA of authority to regulate in the area because “he thinks that it should be done with incentives, not regulations from the top down.” Thompson went on to explain that Nelson is concerned that the EPA’s regulations would prove too costly for businesses and individuals in Nebraska, a position Nelson has made repeatedly in the past.

But according to Doniger, “There’s no serious pollution problem that’s ever been solved by voluntary action.”

Denial specific to American conservatives?

The GOP position on climate change stands in stark contrast to conservative platforms in other countries. In England, for example, the facts that climate change is happening, that it is caused by human activities, and that it needs to be controlled by the government are actually part of the Conservative Party’s official position. (see box on a different kind of conservatism).

In a 2009 speech before Congress, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the leader of the conservative Christian Democratic Union Party, told Congress: “We cannot afford failure with regard to achieving the climate protection objectives scientists tell us are crucial. That would not only be irresponsible from an ecological point of view, but would also be technologically short-sighted, for the development of new technologies in the energy sector offers major opportunities for growth and jobs in the future.”

Doniger sighed. “This seems to be a particularly American problem.”

Photo credit: Dori (dori@merr.info)