Will The U.S. Chamber of Commerce Save the Climate Bill?
As everyone expected, multiple challenges were made when EPA finalized its "endangerment finding" -- the determination that greenhouse gases presented a substantial risk to human health and welfare. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce led the charge in asking EPA to reconsider its finding. Not surprisingly, EPA denied the petitions.
While the denial was not unexpected, the vigor of the response may have come as a bit of a surprise to some. In issuing its denial, EPA:
- Put out a press release that not only said that "climate science is credible, compelling, and growing stronger," but that deniers should "join with the vast majority of American people who want to see more green jobs, more clean energy innovation and an end to the oil addiction that pollutes our planet and jeopardizes our national security;"
- Issued a 217 page decision that provided a thorough explanation of each point needed to support its finding;
- Set out, in 366 pages, an analysis of the points raised by the objectors with detailed responses to each point;
- Published a "Fact Sheet" and a recitation of purported "Myths v. Facts" that lacked only a discussion of the deniers' questionable ancestry in their critique.
In short, EPA fired both barrels and the result is that it will be very difficult for any court to reverse the finding.
So where to the objectors go from here? On to court, of course. At least five of the petitioners have already said that they plan to appeal. The Chamber has said:
We are deeply disappointed with EPA's failure to reconsider its flawed decision to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. We intend to appeal the ruling.
While the decision to appeal is not surprising, the question is whether it is prudent.
The 60-vote Senate has just given up on climate change legislation. There are plenty of fingers being pointed, but that won't change the decision. One could say that the deniers are in the best position they could possibly hope for: No legislation, with EPA promising to issue weak rules to a limited number of industries that likely will be difficult to enforce. And now, a trial on the science of climate change.
Is this a smart idea? Is it smart to hand EPA a very visible forum to lay out what appears to be a fairly persuasive case (if its denial reports are believed) that climate change is real and must be addressed? Will the 50% - 60% who now believe in the science turn into 80% - 90% after seeing the evidence that the Chamber will force out into the public domain? And if so, will it result in one or two Senators (maybe more) deciding that perhaps they need to change their vote if they want to save their job?
Maybe not. Maybe the Chamber really can beat the EPA on the science. But it really would be ironic if the Chamber caused legislation to be reconsidered after a Scopes Monkey trial where science actually prevailed.
RELATED POSTS: Monkeys and Science, Part Deux
