Barack Obama offers stopgap measures to slow global warming
IN THE full glare of Washington s summer sunshine, Barack Obama unveiled what
he called a co-ordinated assault on a changing climate on June 25th. He
promised to deploy almost every green weapon at his disposal, from better
insulation in public buildings to loan guarantees for clean energy. To engage
the enemy as quickly as possible, he is relying solely on authority already
granted to him by Congress. Yet most of the munitions in his atmospheric
arsenal are less than fearsome and Congress, which could provide
reinforcements, prefers not to.
The centrepiece of Mr Obama s climate action plan is a directive to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to limit the amount of carbon dioxide
that power plants may produce. The EPA was already working on such a rule for
new plants; the president wants it to produce that by September 20th, and one
curbing emissions from existing plants a year from now. Since power plants spew
out almost 40% of America s greenhouse gases, and are not yet subject to any
restrictions, this order could in theory make a big dent in America s
contribution to global warming.
In addition, the president ordered the strengthening of fuel-economy standards
for lorries and buses, on top of the increases for all vehicles adopted in his
first term. He offered $8 billion in loan guarantees for the deployment of
technologies that make fossil fuels less harmful to the climate, such as carbon
capture. He promised to promote renewable power by encouraging the construction
of wind farms and solar arrays on federal lands, by requiring government
agencies to obtain more of their own power from such sources and by
streamlining permits for a more efficient electricity grid.
Mr Obama said he would tighten energy-efficiency standards for federal
buildings and try to get mortgage lenders to take more account of energy
efficiency in home sales. There was talk of curbing leaks of natural gas,
managing forests to trap more carbon and phasing out HFCs (chemicals used in
air-conditioners and fridges that are especially potent greenhouse gases).
Some thought Mr Obama would approve Keystone XL, a pipeline for carrying
Canadian oil to American refineries. Instead, he said the pipe could go ahead
only if it does not significantly exacerbate carbon pollution a high hurdle
for oil from tar sands.
All this is supposed to help fulfil the president s pledge to get America s
greenhouse-gas emissions to 17% below the level of 2005 by 2020. In fact,
America s emissions have been falling, thanks to the recession and widespread
switching from coal- to gas-fired power stations. But not fast enough: they are
only 7% below the level of 2005, and the administration estimates that they are
poised to start rising again.
Green groups say that Mr Obama s plan, if vigorously pursued, might propel
America most of the way to its target. But the president is less agitated than
they are about the need to reduce emissions from natural-gas drilling and
transport, for example. He gave no indication of the scale of cuts he would
like to see from existing power plants, the most important element of his plan.
And however exacting the EPA s rules are, drafting and implementing them will
be a long and uncertain process.
The EPA s authority over greenhouse gases stems from the Clean Air Act, which
was first passed in 1970 to combat smog. Under its terms, the agency must
propose standards for existing power plants, revise them after listening to
comments and then wait for each state to come up with an implementation plan,
which in turn will set compliance dates that may be several years in the
future. Mr Obama is thus likely to be out of office before the new standards
bring down emissions at all.
Moreover, even the relatively modest rules the agency has promulgated under the
act on less pervasive pollutants than carbon dioxide have sparked endless
lawsuits. This week, for example, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge
to restrictions on ozone that drifts over state boundaries. There is great
uncertainty as to whether the relevant section of the act permits the EPA to
adopt trading schemes and other market-based mechanisms to spur cuts, or only
allows it to require particular technological fixes. And even if the rules
survive in court, a future administration could reverse them, as George W. Bush
s underlings did in 2005 with a Clinton-era ruling that mercury was an
especially dangerous pollutant to be regulated under a particular section of
the act.
If you want less of it, tax it
Mr Obama himself admits that it would be far better if Congress adopted a more
sweeping measure that, in effect, puts a uniform price on carbon from any
source. That would allow cuts to be achieved more cheaply and efficiently. But
all such proposals have run aground in Congress; the last big push, in 2009,
cost many Democrats their seats in the next year s mid-term elections.
Many House Republicans doubt that the planet is heating up at all. Others
question the expense and effectiveness of Mr Obama s plan. Almost all salivate
at the prospect of excoriating Democrats at next year s mid-terms for
throttling the economy with green tape. No wonder, then, that the most
impassioned part of Mr Obama s speech was when he called on supporters to
convince their neighbours that climate change is real, and to urge them to vote
accordingly.