Tropes

Nature 01007.txt

Senate climate debate up in the air: Nature Newshaving passed climate legislation in the House of representatives last June, Democrats in the US Congress were hoping to push climate legislation through the Senate this spring. But the politics shifted with a special election in Massachusetts this week that tipped one of the 60 Democratic-voting seats to Republican hands. And on Thursday, Lisa Murkowski (Republican, Alaska) introduced a resolution that would effectively block the Environmental protection agency (EPA) from implementing new greenhouse-gas regulations. Nature takes a look at the resolution and the longer-term prospects for global-warming legislation. What would Murkowski's resolution do? The language states that Congress disapproves of the EPA's December 2009 assessment that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health. That'endangerment finding'was spurred by a 2007 Supreme court ruling that the EPA has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles and, by extension, from power plants and other sources. By declaring greenhouse gases a public health threat, the EPA is now legally bound to regulate emissions. Murkowski's resolution would use existing congressional authority to override decisions by the administration of President Barack Obama, thus blocking the endangerment finding and preventing the EPA from following through with its emissions regulations. How much support does the senator have? Nearly everybody in Washington agrees that Congress, not the EPA, should tackle global warming, but it's an open question as to how many senators would block the EPA's efforts if Congress fails to act. Murkowski's resolution is supported by three Democrats, including the chairwoman of the Senate agriculture committee, Blanche lincoln (Democrat, Arkansas). Assuming that the vote on Murkowski's resolution takes place after Massachusetts'newly elected Republican senator, Scott Brown, is sworn into office likely within weeks Murkowski and the Republicans already have at least 44 votes, which is 7 short of the majority needed to pass. Notably she opted not to introduce a standard legislative amendment, which would have required 60 votes for passage. But even if the resolution passes the Senate, Democrats have a sizeable majority in the House of representatives, and Obama has the power to veto any legislation that might make it through both houses. So what's the significance? It's a question of political momentum. The Obama administration has made climate legislation a priority, but health-care reform occupied Congress for most of 2009. Now, instead of pushing forward on climate, Democrats find themselves on the defensive. Environmentalists and major industry supporters are taking the Murkowski threat seriously, recognizing that even a symbolic vote against climate regulation would qualify as a major setback. Will a Senate climate bill go forward? The outlook for comprehensive climate legislation in 2010 is bleak. Even optimists are quoting odds of 50/50, but the Senate is tough to predict. Brown's election in Massachusetts makes things more difficult. Counting two independents, Democrats previously had a 60-vote majority, which is enough to push through any legislation as long as the party sticks together. This was critical for health care, but Democrats never had a chance of holding the party together on climate legislation, on which votes break along regional lines. Brown's election could mean that they will have to pick up one more Republican vote. With Democrats fearful of a public backlash in the November mid-term elections it might come down to business interests. Many large corporations see greenhouse gas regulations as inevitable and are now arguing for legislation on the grounds that they cannot make investments -or accurately calculate their bottom line-until regulations are locked into place. Businesses may also be in the best position to argue that greening the economy will create new job opportunities. Environmentalists recognize as much and recently teamed up with dozens of high-profile corporations to push for climate legislation this year. What if that initiative fails? Lawmakers are exploring other options, including clean-energy legislation or a scaled-back climate bill that focuses on power plants and possibly on other major industrial sources of greenhouse-gas emissions. Europe took this course when it began regulating greenhouse gases, and it might not be a bad option for the United states, particularly if coupled with separate greenhouse-gas regulations that the administration is developing for automobiles, says Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change in Arlington, Virginia. I think the time has come to figure out what will actually get 60 votes she says. It's really important to understand what is possible and what is not. What will the EPA do in the meantime? EPA will keep plugging along. In September, the agency proposed a rule that would limit near-term regulations to emissions from large industrial sources. At some point, it will follow up with a regulatory proposal that is likely to focus on power plants and other major industrial sources. That would mark a new beginning, perhaps spurring renewed efforts on the part of lawmakers and businesses who don't want to leave such decisions in the hands of government regulators.

< Back - Next >