The U.S. Senate has been unable to pass a bill addressing global warming, but energy is building in Congress to do something about the regulation of greenhouse gases.
Unfortunately, the burst of energy is coming from those determined to thwart regulation. Those who have no worries about greenhouse gases are pushing legislation to deny the Environmental Protection Agency the authority it needs to set limits and deadlines for polluters.
The EPA deserves the support of those who believe global warming is a genuine concern. Its modest goal of gradually reducing emissions from power plants, vehicles and other major sources is the only significant U.S. effort to address this problem.
Global warming is already raising sea levels through the melting of glaciers and polar ice, and the trend will put growing pressure on coastal dwellers. Both storms and droughts are likely to become more intense as the climate warms, and there are unmistakable signs that this is occurring.
The Supreme Court has upheld the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases, but several House bills seek to rein it in. And in the Senate, Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., proposes to block any new regulations for two years.
Republicans on a House subcommittee opened what promises to be a sustained attack on the agency Wednesday. Lawmakers called the science behind global warning a hoax and asserted that regulating greenhouse gases will cost millions of jobs and billions of dollars.
Lisa Jackson, the EPA administrator, argued that the agency’s moderate efforts would both create jobs and improve the environment. The opposition she encountered makes it hard to believe that a year ago there was still hope that a bipartisan concern for the environment would produce cap-and-trade legislation aimed at reducing greenhouse emissions.
The best hope now is that there’s enough support for the environment in Congress to sustain the EPA’s authority to regulate harmful emissions.
Questions? Comments? Contact Managing Editor Nick Cowenhoven at nickc@journaltribune.com.
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less