WASHINGTON — Opening the door to possible broad new federal regulation on U.S. power plants, heavy industry and automobiles, the Obama administration officially declared Monday that greenhouse gases produced by burning coal and oil are a danger to public health.
“Look at the droughts, the flooding, the changes in diseases, the changes in migratory habits, the changes in our water cycle and climate that we now find affect human health and welfare,” Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson said in announcing the so-called “endangerment finding.”
The finding is a key step in a legal process that would allow the EPA to act on its own authority — without further action by Congress — to develop tough rules for emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases that scientists blame for global warming.
The finding is also the latest step in the Obama administration’s carrot-and-stick strategy for keeping pressure on Congress to approve a comprehensive climate bill, while at the same time giving the president an alternative approach if the legislation bogs down.
Legislation preferred
For political and other reasons, the White House has said repeatedly it would prefer to deal with the complex and emotion-charged issue through congressional action.
Climate legislation would affect a broad swath of the American economy and could raise consumer prices and manufacturing costs in at least some areas. It also faces formidable opposition from business groups, Republican lawmakers and some Democrats.
The challenge of passing a bill is all the greater at a time when Congress is preoccupied with the even more controversial health care overhaul and voters seem more concerned about jobs and the economy than about long-term climate change.
As a result, President Barack Obama — who made action on global warming a signature promise during last year’s presidential campaign — also has moved forward on the alternative track: direct administrative action by the EPA.
And, coming on the eve of Obama’s trip to the climate summit in Copenhagen, the endangerment announcement gives the White House something positive to point to in the absence of congressional action.
At the same time, even with Monday’s announcement, the White House has not committed itself to pushing ahead with the regulatory process even if climate legislation bogs down.
Critical response
Criticism of the EPA announcement came quickly.
Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, said, “The elected Congress, not an administrative agency, should write the laws governing the economy’s response to climate change.
“The costs of compliance with the EPA’s unilateral announcement today could run into hundreds of billions of dollars a year — costs borne by average Americans through huge increases in their electric bills and at the gas pump. This is an especially bad idea when unemployment is at 10 percent,” he said.
And Jeff Holmstead, former EPA air administrator in the George W. Bush administration, expressed concern that new paperwork requirements would bring new construction “to a standstill.”
“If the agency’s eventual regulatory approach is mishandled, it could result in profound consequences for the economy with little environmental benefit to show for it,” Holmstead said.
Climate legislation also is strongly opposed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, though its position has drawn criticism from some prominent members.
Jackson said Monday that the endangerment finding was not intended to pressure Congress and that legislation is still the best way to address climate pollution and move toward clean energy.
In economic terms, complying with new emissions regulations would be much more expensive than using the “cap- and-trade” provision in the climate bill, some analysts say.
If the EPA imposes rules, companies would likely have to move more quickly to make costly changes in their operations.
Even so, Jackson said, “I do not believe this is an ‘either-or’ proposition. I actually see this as a ‘both-and.’ I believe the Clean Air Act can complement legislative efforts.”
