|
Contact
Jim: jdipeso@rep.org
(253) 740-2066 / 2009
Archive / 2008
Archive / 2007
Archive / 2006
Archive / 2005
Archive
Slow Simmer Is Better Than Fast Broil
May 8, 2009
EPA
is holding two hearings in a couple of weeks on its proposed finding
that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare.
Of
course they do. The evidence is increasingly clear that emissions of
heat-trapping gases are playing games with the climate, which could
lead to more unwanted spin-off effects than human society is geared to
handle.
If
EPA finalizes its finding -- count us shocked if it doesn't -- the
agency would be positioned to use its authority under the Clean Air Act
to limit greenhouse emissions through regulations.
Green
groups will be out in force at hearings scheduled May 18 in Arlington,
Virginia, across the Potomac River from Washington, DC, and May 21 in
Seattle. Many, no doubt, will press EPA to use its regulatory club
sooner rather than later to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
Writing
and passing a bill is a slow, frustrating simmer. In comparison,
writing and imposing a regulation is a fast broil. It has to be easier.
Easier,
but not better. Manhandling a bill through the congressional sausage
machine is never an undertaking for the faint-hearted, especially for
an issue as devilishly complicated as climate change. But
legislation would be more efficacious in beginning the long transition
to a
different energy future.
The
reason why is that not everyone sees the world through the same lens as
some of the greens do.
That
there is a diversity of opinion about climate policy is the
understatement of the year. Every industry, every community, and every
household would be affected by emissions limits in different ways, some
positive, some not.
As
Congressman Jay Inslee, D-WA, one of the House's leading advocates of
cap-and-trade legislation, said at a May 7 press conference: "It's a
big country."
Calibrating
legislative language to find the right balance point at which a majority of
lawmakers are willing to sign off on a bill will take a great deal of
discussion, drafting, re-drafting, hearings, amendments, and hair
pulling. Members of Congress will have to weigh what their constituents
are saying in town hall meetings, phone calls, and letters.
The
process is hard and was designed to be hard, because legislation that
lands on the federal statute books tends to stay for a very long time.
The men who wrote the Constitution wanted the people's representatives
to think things through.
The
end product is not likely to look like a bill that any interest group
would draft, but it's likely to enjoy broader and more lasting public
support than rules that land with a bureaucratic thud.
Not
that the endangerment finding would be a negative. EPA's willingness to
use its regulatory hammer will hang like a shadow over the
congressional proceedings, and perhaps cause lawmakers to display a bit
more alacrity, if you please. But actual use of the hammer would likely
sow bitterness and lead to a conga line of lawyers snaking through
federal courthouses bearing injunction motions.
No
matter how satisfied an EPA edict would make some of the more fervent
climate activists feel, a broadly supported bill adopted through
regular congressional order would do more for climate stewardship than
a directive subject to litigation and, perhaps, overturning by a future
administration.
Patience,
friends.
|
