EPA Decision Sets Back Global Warming Reduction Efforts

By U.S. Rep. James Moran
August 12, 2008

Over a year ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the express authority to regulate greenhouse gases as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act.  The Court further directed the EPA to decide whether the public health is being harmed by greenhouse gas emissions.   

EPA had a historic opportunity to tackle head-on one of the greatest threats to our existence—global warming. Instead they balked under pressure from the administration, concluding the problem is so complex and controversial that it cannot be resolved. 

Of particular concern to EPA are the costs to the economy. That’s reasonable. They caution, “The potential regulation of greenhouse gases under any portion of the Clean Air Act could result in an unprecedented expansion of EPA authority that would have a profound effect on virtually every sector of the economy and touch every household in the land.”

But how can a problem as threatening as global warming be addressed without profoundly affecting virtually every sector of the economy and touching every household?  We are all responsible for greenhouse gas emissions, from the fossil-fuel-based electricity we use to cool our homes and businesses, to the gasoline that powers our vehicles and transports our consumer goods.  Of course there will be costs, and virtually everyone will have to bear them. 

But the consequences of the kind of inaction endorsed by the EPA are much greater. In a recent speech, Dr. James Hansen, the nation’s foremost authority on climate change, warned in vivid detail that our climate is nearing a dangerous tipping point and the elements of a global cataclysm are assembling.  According to Hansen, arctic sea ice is melting, exposing darker ocean, which melts even more ice.  Sea levels are predicted to rise at least two meters this century, displacing hundreds of millions of people.  Arid subtropical climate zones have already expanded by about 250 miles, endangering native plant and animal species.  If we allow this trend to continue, our arctic and polar species will disappear and other flora and fauna interdependent on their survival may also perish.  Mountain glaciers, the source of water for hundreds of millions of people, will disappear.  Ocean acidification will destroy coral reefs and the chain of sea life they support. 

More immediate risks to the health of Americans would also occur due to a warming climate. These include more heat-related deaths, more heart and lung diseases, an increase in water- and food-borne illnesses, and health problems related to hurricanes, extreme precipitation and wildfires. Generally speaking, an increasingly harsh climate would greatly degrade our quality of life.

Locally, the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem is at particular risk from this warming phenomenon. A study by the National Wildlife Federation examined the effects on the Bay of a sea level rise of about two feet, less than half of what Dr. Hansen predicts.  Maps accompanying the report show a shoreline that by 2051 is significantly eroded, and by 2100 is, in some areas, largely unrecognizable.  By the end of the century, ocean beaches are predicted to decline by 58 percent and estuarine beaches by 69 percent. Widespread shifts in ecosystem composition and the regional food web will place hundreds of species of fish, invertebrates, birds, and other animals in danger. The effect on homes and businesses in coastal communities would be devastating.  

Twenty years have passed since Dr. Hansen first testified before Congress on global warming, warning that the Earth had entered a long-term warming trend and that human-made greenhouse gases were responsible.  Dr. Hansen now tells us that the safe level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is no more than 350 parts per million and may be less.  The current level is 385 ppm and rising about 2 ppm per year.  He warns that a level of no more than 350 ppm is still feasible, but just barely – time is running out. 
 
Maybe EPA is correct that regulation under the Clean Air Act is not the best approach to addressing climate change. But what alternatives are the Agency tasked with protecting the environment offering?  What is needed from the President and his environmental experts is leadership, not contorted efforts to delay action while accommodating the profit motives of the corporations benefiting from the status quo.  It has been 31 years since President Carter showed such leadership in a speech urging Americans to stop wastefully consuming energy and plundering the environment in search of declining supplies of oil and natural gas, and to accept the challenge of investing in alternative energy sources.

Vice President Gore now estimates the cost of transforming the nation to clean electricity sources at $1.5 trillion to $3 trillion in public and private money over the course of 30 years.  “This is an investment that will pay itself back many times over,” he says.  “It’s an expensive investment but not compared to the rising cost of continuing to invest in fossil fuels.”  It is certainly a better investment than the estimated $3 trillion we will spend all told on the Iraq war.