Politics, News & Issues >
Climate Change
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedWho should regulate greenhouse emission standards: The States or the EPA?
Results so far:
| States | 41% | 12 votes | Total: 29 votes | |
| EPA | 59% | 17 votes |
States
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesOn December 19, 2007, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen L Johnson palsied 17 state's from implementing their own greenhouse gas emissions standards for mobile source polluters, of which autos are the primary contributors. Administrator Johnson's decision came in response to an energy bill passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush on December 20. While the State of California and Maryland have vowed to fight the EPA's decision, before the issue appears before the federal courts it's necessary to analyze the reasoning behind that decision.
Administrat or Johnson defends the decision on the ground that the new energy bill will take into account all 50 states and not just a select few. This holistic approach is meant to turn a patchwork of emissions standards into an EPA driven well oiled, or at least well carbon foot-printed machine.
In recent years under the Clean Air Act, the leading emissions standard regulation policy, the EPA has allowed California to take a more concentrated approach to the greenhouse gas emission problems that can be most visibly seen over the Los Angeles area. Allowing the states to take initiative has long been the driving force behind the EPA. Without the states actively creating and implementing their State Implementation Policies (SIPs), the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) would be ineffective due to the lack of resources possessed by the EPA.
Until Administrator Johnson's recent decision, the states have been rewarded and not punished for taking their personal and individualistic state problems and capacities into consideration for solving environmental issues. Allowing California and other states to create their own greenhouse gas standards does not exempt these states from national EPA set standards, it simply provides the states with the freedom to be creative and inventive in meeting the standards.
Although a holistic national attack lead by the EPA and the emissions bill is a forceful act in an often muddled area of regulation, it's simply unrealistic. The environmental diversity of the nation is as multifarious as the ecosystems that are being detrimentally effected by greenhouse gas, and Administrator Johnson should focus the EPA's resources on improving instead of hindering emission standards.
Learn more about this author, Christopher Sokol.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
EPA
Regulating greenhouse gas emission standards has become an important issue to the United States because of it purported link to global warming, or more precisely, global climate change. Like all important issues facing the country, there is an active and appropriate debate about where responsibility should lie with the federal government or with the individual states.
Since the issue is not specifically addressed in our Constitution, there is room for debate on this question. Those that favor regulation by the federal government, through its Environmental Protection Agency, an arm of the executive branch, point to the ability to ensure uniform standards across the country to the benefit of all. Those that favor more power resident in the states believe that each state should be free to decide what the limits are.
Allowing the states to choose could lead a wide variety of standards to be applied. Consider the case of automobile emissions over the past 30 years. States such as California and New York adopted stricter standards than most other states, creating instances where certain vehicle types could not legally be sold in California, but were welcome in Nevada. This variability led to greater cost for the manufacturers who tried to answer the market needs. Since California and New York were large markets, their needs tended to carry the day, although they were not enough to drive to a single standard. From the perspective of Ford and GM, it would have been simpler and less costly to have a single set of standards, and those cost savings would have been welcome to consumers in California. Over time, the tighter restrictions of California have been adopted by other states, to the extent that they represent a standard-but the freedom to choose enabled many states to delay adoption of the standards, which delayed benefits to the environment.
The Constitution contains two clauses that could be applied to answer the question. The General Welfare' clause gives the federal government authority over broad areas that affect all the states. The 'Interstate Commerce' clause gives the federal government over interstate trade and commerce, which is often taken to include various forms of interaction between the states. Since the effects of greenhouse gas emissions cannot be isolated to a single state, it would seem logical that a single governing policy for such emissions would properly fit as a role for the federal government.
There are probably lots of opinions and an array of facts supporting the contention that the EPA is not the right agency to regulate Greenhouse gas emissions. The agency is however recognized by the executive branch and funded by the legislative branch to assume that role. Therefore, it would seem best to place it in charge of the issue, with the provision that Congress, the courts and the executive branch all exert their appropriate means of oversight to ensure that the right regulations and enforcement result. Since our government is by and for the people, we all must exercise our civic responsibility to ensure that the right course of action is formulated and accomplished. We owe it to each other, our children and the future to make it so.
Learn more about this author, Gary O'Neill.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Climate Change
- Should the U.S. enact tough new environmental regulations to combat global warming?
- Should the world be concerned about Greenland's melting glaciers?
- Can biofuels help us reduce global warming pollution and our dependence on fossil fuels?
- Is nuclear power the answer to global warming?
- Should we emphasize adaptation to climate change or mitigation of CO2 emissions?
- Are you concerned that governments may use climate change policy to limit your lifestyle choices
