This morning, the world woke up to the headline that a record decline of Arctic summer sea ice has left scientists worried that we may have reached a new tipping point in global warming, with one scientist going so far as to plead that "the Arctic is screaming." It's not clear whether this year is an aberration or really is the dangerous acceleration of a long and well-documented warming trend, but needless to say, it kind of makes you want to immediately start dealing with the issue on a broader scale.
That is, unless you're the current occupants of the White House. Others have quite aptly expressed outrage at the United States' role in the Bali climate talks going on this week. But closer to home, White House sources have chosen this morning's New York Times as their venue to clarify exactly what kind of a solution they'll agree to on a national scale:
A senior White House policy adviser, speaking on the condition of anonymity because confidential discussions with Congress are continuing, said the administration’s concern was that Congress would specify [in the energy bill] a 35 m.p.g. standard that would later be overtaken by aggressive new rule-making by the E.P.A. as it seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Some of the Democratic presidential candidates have called for even stricter mileage mandates, and California and 14 other states have petitioned the E.P.A. for permission to impose stringent carbon dioxide emissions limits on cars and trucks.
“What we are saying is that we’d like to have D.O.T. and E.P.A. consult on both vehicle economy and greenhouse gases and set a standard and that should be it,” the White House official said. “Not that should be it until something or someone else comes along.”
In other words, after twenty years of the federal government doing next to nothing to deal with auto emissions while the climate sufferred-- with some advances along the way, many of them spread thanks to state innovation-- their solution is to set a single national standard, then lock it in under the auspices of the federal agency that's generally friendliest to the industry. Period, end of story for the foreseeable future, and tough luck if the consensus otherwise is that this action should only be a down payment on solving the problem and moving us toward a clean-energy economy.
This is exactly what industry sources tried (and failed) to do with regards to the Clean Air Act decades ago, and its a big part of why they are so gung-ho to gut Mass. v. EPA and preempt state action. Except this time, we're not only dealing with the problem of air pollution, but a global catastrophe that isn't waiting around for next time the Congress decides to act.
Comments