Here’s a quick thought, and I’ll have to check around how much it has already been vetted:
Most discussions I see regarding government action on climate change imply that EPA would do the acting. Either new legislation would prompt the action, or, as the Massachusetts v. EPA opinion stated, EPA could act under the Clean Air Act.
But is EPA the best agency to take on climate change. Might it be NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)?
I realize that agencies’ perogatives veer from the semantic suggestions of their names; but, for a moment anyway this morning, I got to thinking that climate change is a global, atmospheric issue, while statutes have generally charged EPA to protect environments threatened by direct threats to the realms after which EPA named its major offices, like Water and Air; or the mediums of particular pollutants.
The answer to this quiery may rely upon which agency better understands the carbon cycle, etc. Or, it may make sense to put an agency better positioned to understand commercial issues along with the scientific (NOAA is housed in Dept of Commerce).
Will report back after looking into the thought.
September 10, 2008 at 12:21 pm
On first blush, I’d vote for NOAA to handle it — but that’s purely based on my unsubstantiated belief that NOAA is less politicized than EPA. (By that I mean, less liable to be influenced by non-scientific considerations in its decision-making . . .) APO, based on all your work with federal agencies, is that a good assumption — or is it just that we see fewer headlines about NOAA, so we mistakenly believe it’s causing less uproar and therefore is more objective?
September 11, 2008 at 12:14 am
one objection to NOAA might be that the agency observes climate issues, but does not regulate climate change causers (new word?) - http://www.noaa.gov/climate.html
Then again, nor does EPA regulate carbon, yet.
So here’s one factor: who’s best to regulate - the agency that has observed climate change, or the agency that has observed alot of the folks that do the climate changing? If the latter, it’s not likely EPA - probably better to look to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
September 11, 2008 at 10:02 am
Re: who observes the folks that do the climate changing — Highway may observe the cars who emit carbon dioxide; but when we look at who else emits carbon (and other nasties), we immediately think of coal-fired power plants, which brings us back to EPA again. Maybe climate change is one of those things that needs a larger umbrella — something Department of Homeland Security-esque which can bring together elements of many agencies.
September 11, 2008 at 10:07 am
Right -
I need to check the facts, but I seem to remember my climate change colleagues discussing this issue that the industries that EPA regulates don’t cause most GHG emissions, nor take up most energy…it’s all us small guys out there burning the lights that require plants to shoot out energy, and driving cars that require fossil fuels.
so - that’s certainly correct that the effort requires either a large umbrella, or a cross agency approach with directives to several agencies that are able to act - like EPA starts regulating carbon emissions within those industries it already watches - while National Highways ups the CAFE standards, and so on.
September 11, 2008 at 10:59 am
Indeed — there are things that EPA (and, if necessary, the courts) can force the coal-fired power plants to do, e.g. installing scrubbers, etc. But it is so true that reducing consumer demand for energy is the most fundamental way to curb carbon emissions. Wonder if a climate change umbrella agency could also address this element of consumer demand by regulating and giving incentives to manufacturers of appliances, farmers, and others who produce consumer products, to induce them to make “green,” i.e less energy-consuming, products. Kind of like a giant expansion of the federal EnergyStar thing.