| OL: Why would this be better than current legislative approach?
KRS: The Clean Air Act is one of the most successful environmental laws of all time. It has protected the air we breathe for four decades, saves thousands of lives each year and has produced economic benefits worth 42 times the cost of the pollution reductions, according to the EPA's own data. The Clean Air Act works, and it is well suited to reducing greenhouse pollution as well. While polluters lob endless attacks the Clean Air Act, the fact is that it is our strongest existing tool for reducing greenhouse pollution, and even includes a central provision to set a science-based pollution cap, called a national ambient air quality standard, or NAAQS, for carbon pollution that is sufficient to protect the public health and welfare.
The current legislative approach would exempt greenhouse pollution from nearly all Clean Air Act programs and replace it with a deeply flawed cap-and-trade system with an inadequate carbon cap.
OL: What impact would this have in terms of an international agreement?
KRS: As we demonstrate in our new report, Yes, He Can: President Obama's Power to Make an International Climate Commitment Without Waiting for Congress, President Obama has all the legal tools he needs to agree to science-based reduction targets of 45% or more below 1990 levels by 2020, and achieve those reductions under the Clean Air Act. Its often asserted that the President's hands are tied by Congress's failure to act, but this is simply not the case legally. If the President chooses not to agree to science-based reduction targets here in Copenhagen, that is because he is making a political decision not to do so, not because he faces legal constraints.
OL: Why has the EPA/regulatory alternative not gotten more attention?
KRS: There has been an enormous effort in this country to promote the idea that market mechanisms such as cap-and-trade are superior to direct pollution reductions under our flagship environmental laws. Therefore many people have accepted the unsupported assertion that the Clean Air Act is not well-suited to reducing greenhouse gases and should be replaced with a cap-and-trade system. There's simply not that many people pressing the administration to fully implement the Clean Air Act immediately, and pressing Congress to retain the safety net of the Clean Air Act for greenhouse gases in any new legislation.
OL: I've been reporting on air pollution issues in proximity to the Port of Los Angeles since 2002. Our local air is wildly out of compliance with federal law, and even well-intentioned local regulators have limited ability to improve conditions.
(a) How would your proposal avoid getting bogged down with similar problems?
KRS: I believe that inadequate progress we've seen with traditional air pollution in some areas like Los Angeles are related to inadequate enforcement rather than any inherent flaws in the law itself. We need to greatly change the political situation so that the EPA has the political will to actually implement the law. Solutions are available both for greenhouse gases and traditional air pollutants, but it means making real changes. These are changes that will improve our lives for the better, but it will take leadership in order to get there. If as a society we make the decision to do so, we can get it done.
OL: If additional legislative authority were necessary to enable regulatory effectiveness, how would such legislative battles compare with the policy path currently being pursued?
KRS: Until the politics change, we're going to have legislative battles. The good news is that we don't currently need any new legislative authority - the President has all the tools he needs to begin deep and rapid greenhouse emissions reductions. This is the single most important thing he could do to change the politics - because once the EPA and the states get started with successful greenhouse pollution reductions, people will see that all the scare tactics from industry are simply incorrect. Industry has always argued against new health and safety regulations - the auto industry said that the original Clean Air Act targets for traditional pollutants could not be achieved, and that making seat belts mandatory would irreparably harm the industry, to name just a few examples, and yet we now take these things for granted.
OL: What other considerations should influence our thinking about global warming, and this alternative approach to dealing with it?
KRS: We need our policies to be guided by the science. The science tells us that this is a matter of life and death. 300,000 people per year already die due to climate change. We are already losing plants, animals, and entire ecosystems, such as the Arctic, where polar bears are drowning, starving, and even resorting to cannibalism as their sea-ice habitat melts beneath their feet. The science tells us that we need to reduce carbon dioxide concentrations back to below 350 ppm, and that means reducing emissions by 45% or more below 1990 levels by 2020. We need to do the right thing and get serious about reducing greenhouse pollution.
OL: Finally, what can people do to help advance this approach to dealing with the problem?
KRS: I think right now the most important things are to press the EPA to move forward quickly with comprehensive greenhouse pollution reductions under the Clean Air Act, and to demand that Congress not gut existing law when passing new climate legislation. Please join our activist network here: http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/action/activist/index.html,and sign our petition for strong legislation here: http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2167/t/5243/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=2181.
Individual phone calls and meetings with your Senator and Representatives really do make a difference, and we can help you set up a meeting on this issue. Email Rose Braz at rbraz@biologicaldiversity.org for more information. |
STATE BLOGS
