The EPA under the Obama administration has now signaled a major shift from the Bush years where global warming was pooh-poohed, sentiments echoed by many conservatives and talk show hosts.
Time Magazine has this to say on what it calls the EPA’s “landmark decision Friday to set in motion the process of regulating greenhouse gases..”
Concluding a scientific review initially ordered by a two-year-old Supreme Court case, the EPA issued its long-awaited “endangerment finding,” formally declaring that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases are pollutants that threaten public health and welfare. Under the Clean Air Act, that finding means that the EPA has a responsibility to address the damage caused by greenhouse gases, possibly through direct regulation of CO2 — just as it regulates other air pollutants, like acid rain-causing sulfur dioxide.
“The finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations,” said EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. “Fortunately, it follows President [Barack] Obama’s call for a low-carbon economy and strong leadership in Congress on clean energy and climate legislation.”
But Time also notes:
As momentous as the EPA’s decision was — the finding stated “in both magnitude and probability, climate change is an enormous problem” — no one actually wants the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. Not even Jackson or Obama, both of whom have repeatedly stated that they would much prefer Congress to set limits on greenhouse gas emissions directly, most likely through a cap-and-trade program. Most environmentalists feel the same way. The problem is getting cap-and-trade passed in Congress; most Republicans are against it on the grounds that it might hurt the economy by raising energy prices in the short term, and many Democrats from states with lots of polluting coal plants feel similarly.
CBS News points out that as significant as this shift is, actually putting any new regulations in place could take years in terms of legislation and court challenges. But to environmentalists and those who believe the bulk of scientists on this issue it is a major — and welcome — shift:
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.