NowComment
2-Pane Combined
Comments:
Full Summaries Sorted

United States: Climate Policy

Author: Gale, a Cengage Company

“United States: Climate Policy.” Gale Global Issues Online Collection, Gale, Farmington Hills, MI, 2019. Gale In Context: Global Issues, link.gale.com/apps/doc/CP3208520178/GIC?u=onlinelibrary&sid=GIC&xid=8c5f5459. Accessed 9 Mar. 2021.

In July 2019, the U.S. president Donald Trump (1946–) gave a lengthy speech about the nation's environment. He did not mention global warming or climate change. This purposeful omission reflects the attitude within his administration that the United States should not have a climate policy. Trump has publicly called climate change "a hoax," rejected U.S. participation in the Paris Agreement on climate change, and worked diligently to dismantle climate policy initiatives that were implemented by his predecessor, President Barack Obama (1961–).

Trump is a Republican while Obama is a Democrat. Their contrasting views on climate change mirror national trends. Republicans largely oppose measures to mitigate climate change, while most Democrats support them. However, the U.S. position on climate change is not completely explained by this divide. For example, congressional Democrats have rejected environmental protection policies that were championed by presidents from their own party.

An overarching concern is the U.S. economy. For many leaders, the fossil fuel industry is too important to economic prosperity to risk government regulation that might diminish its performance. This belief has consistently undercut efforts by Democratic presidents (and allied legislators) to impose national limits on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Although some state and local governments have made climate policy an area of focus, its role was minimal in U.S. federal policy that was implemented during the first half of 2019

BACKGROUND

Earth's natural greenhouse effect allows the planet to support life. However, human activities -- primarily the burning of fossil fuels - increase the amount of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, intensifying the natural greenhouse effect and thus Earth's temperature.

Climate concerns began influencing U.S. policy decisions during the late twentieth century after scientists focused international attention on the threats of global warming and climate change. In 1990, the U.S. Congress passed the Global Change Research Act to establish a U.S. research program to study the problem.

Over subsequent decades, much political wrangling took place concerning the divisive issues involved. This occurred among much public skepticism that global warming was actually occurring and that humans were to blame. As a result, no national consensus evolved over how the United States should approach climate change. The nation wound up with a climate policy in 2019 best summed up by the following actions:

  • Study climate change
  • Increase energy efficiency across the U.S. economy
  • Support both the fossil fuel and alternative fuel industries
  • Monitor and report the nation's GHG emissions
  • Reject national limits on GHG emissions

The last action is the one that attracts the most attention both domestically and internationally. It has become engrained in U.S. policy despite many high-level efforts to take a different path.

CONFLICTING PATHS

The United States has been led by five presidents in recent decades:

  • George H. W. Bush (1924–2018): Republican, in office from 1989 to 1993
  • Bill Clinton (1946–): Democrat, in office from 1993 to 2001
  • George W. Bush (1946–): Republican, in office from 2001 to 2009
  • Obama: Democrat, in office from 2009 to 2017
  • Trump: Republican, took office in January 2017

Clinton and Obama were the only presidents to advocate for national GHG emissions limits. However, they were thwarted by legislators from both political parties.

During the mid-1990s, the Clinton administration was negotiating conditions for U.S. participation in the Kyoto Protocol, an international climate change agreement that was being brokered by the United Nations (UN) under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The protocol aimed to impose GHG emissions limits only on developed nations, a caveat that many U.S. legislators feared would put the United States at an economic disadvantage.

Under U.S. law, the executive branch cannot enter into an international treaty without the approval (ratification) of the U.S. Senate. In 1997, that body passed a unanimous resolution (95–0) indicating that it would refuse to sign any treaty that excludes developing countries from GHG limits or results in "serious harm" to the U.S. economy.

Senate resistance kept the United States from officially being bound by the Kyoto Protocol, even though the U.S. vice president Al Gore (1948–) signed the treaty on behalf of the Clinton administration.

More than a decade later, Obama also encountered congressional opposition to national GHG limits. In 2009, his Democratic allies in the House of Representatives narrowly passed (219–212) a bill that would have capped national GHG emissions. At the time, the Democrats had majority control of the Senate. However, the Senate refused to consider the measure and it died.

Without laws to back their climate policies, Clinton and Obama were left with few options to implement lasting change. Both used executive actions to stimulate development and increase use of alternative energy sources. The Obama administration also aggressively pursued a policy to regulate national GHG emissions under the Clean Air Act.

CLEAN AIR ACT

The Clean Air Act dates back to 1963. It has been amended several times, including a major overhaul in 1990, when Democrats controlled both the House of Representatives and the Senate. At that time, legislators considered, but rejected, proposals to cover carbon dioxide emissions under the law.

In 1999, nineteen organizations petitioned Clinton's EPA to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide and other GHGs from motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act. The agency declined to act on the petition. It was ultimately denied in 2003 during the administration of President George W. Bush.

The petition denial sparked a lawsuit by dozens of interest groups and states. In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5–4 in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency that the Clean Air Act gives the EPA authority to regulate GHGs as air pollutants if the gases can reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.

In 2009, Obama's EPA issued an official endangerment finding, which concluded that GHG emissions threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. This set the stage for the agency to begin regulating the emissions under the Clean Air Act.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is a federal agency under the U.S. Department of Transportation that enforces motor vehicle performance standards, including fuel economy standards. The latter are officially known as Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. They require vehicle manufacturers selling in the United States to meet specific miles per gallon ratings across their fleets or pay a fine for noncompliance. The NHTSA's authority is derived from energy efficiency laws, which have been passed by Congress since the 1970s.

In 2010, Obama's EPA finalized tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions limits to accompany the NHTSA's latest CAFE standards. Together, the two agencies issued standards for new cars and light-duty trucks for model years 2012 to 2025. The strict standards were staged to tighten each year over this long time period.

The Clean Air Act authorizes the EPA to issue regulations that require the states to prepare and submit plans to impose air pollution standards on power plants. This provision has long been used to limit emissions of conventional air pollutants, such as carbon monoxide and lead. In 2015, Obama's EPA issued the Clean Power Plan to add GHGs to the list of regulated pollutants for power plants.

The Clean Power Plan was staunchly criticized by the coal industry and by Republican legislators and governors. Even a handful of Democratic governors joined massive lawsuits that were filed against the EPA. In February 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay that delayed implementation of the plan until the litigation was resolved. Later that year, Trump was elected president amid vows that he would promote the coal industry and roll back Obama-era environmental regulations.

As of mid-2019, the Trump administration had not attempted to repeal the 2009 endangerment finding. It was supported by hundreds of pages of scientific evidence, making it difficult to reverse. Instead, Trump's EPA has focused on regulating GHG emissions to the least extent possible.

The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule was proposed jointly by the EPA and the NHTSA in August 2018. It would freeze the Obama-era CAFE and carbon dioxide standards at their 2020 values, abandoning the tougher restrictions that were slated for 2021 to 2025.

The agencies said the rule would reduce highway fatalities and save hundreds of billions in societal costs. Energy efficiency improvements typically raise the prices of new vehicles, causing some buyers to keep older models that have less sophisticated safety features than newer models.

In July 2019, Trump's EPA proposed the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) Rule to replace the Clean Power Plan. The ACE Rule would require the states to implement energy efficiency improvements at power plants to minimize GHG emissions as technically feasible.

The SAFE and ACE proposals immediately sparked lawsuits by environmental groups and state governments opposed to loosening Obama-era restrictions. As of July 2019, neither rule had been finalized, and it appeared that their fate would be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. In August, the administration announced plans to roll back Obama-era EPA limits on methane emissions by the oil and gas industry.

GREEN NEW DEAL

Meanwhile, some congressional Democrats have championed efforts to aggressively tackle climate change at the federal level. This movement gained political strength after the 2018 midterm elections gave Democrats a majority control of the House of Representative. One newly elected member was the Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (1989–) of New York. In February 2019, she sponsored House Resolution 109 titled "Recognizing the Duty of the Federal Government to Create a "Green New Deal." A similar resolution was introduced in the Senate by the Democratic Senator Ed Markey (1946–) of Massachusetts.

The phrase "New Deal" harkens back to the 1930s, when the Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882–1945) and his congressional allies implemented sweeping economic reforms in an attempt to boost the nation out of the Great Depression. The modern Green New Deal (GND) proposed by Ocasio-Cortez and Markey addresses both socioeconomic and climate change issues.

It calls on the federal government to transition the country away from fossil fuels to "clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources" that are able to meet 100 percent of the U.S. power demand within a decade. Additional objectives include guaranteed jobs, safe and affordable housing, high-quality health care, and social justice and equity for all U.S. citizens.

The GND resolution was vehemently criticized by Republicans as an expensive socialist manifesto that would wreck the U.S. economy. The opinions among Democrats were mixed, with some embracing the resolution and others expressing concern about its potential costs and ambitious timeline.

The Republican Senator Mitch McConnell (1942–) of Kentucky, the Senate Majority Leader, decided to exploit the divisions within the Democratic Party. In March 2019, he asked the Senate to vote on whether the resolution should proceed immediately to floor debate. This move bypassed the hearings and other procedural steps that typically occur when a measure is under congressional consideration.

Senate Democrats decried McConnell's action as a political ploy. It forced them to take sides on the GND. This was politically risky for them given the lack of consensus within the Democratic Party. The legislators saw it as an attempt by Republicans to gain a wedge issue that they could use against Democratic candidates during the 2020 national elections. As a result, nearly all the Democratic senators declined to vote. The resolution failed to proceed after receiving fifty-seven nay votes and zero yea votes.

Although the resolution did not gain traction in Congress, it did foster public debate about climate change and the U.S. response to the problem. It also inspired other Democratic politicians to propose their own climate policies. For example, the Independent Senator Bernie Sanders (1941–) of Vermont unveiled his version of a GND in August 2019.

STATE AND LOCAL ACTIONS

Meanwhile, dozens of state and local jurisdictions have implemented their own climate policies. These initiatives are common for governments led by Democrats. However, a handful of Republican governors in states with large Democratic populations support climate change mitigation efforts. For example, as of 2019 the Republican governors of Maryland, Massachusetts, and Vermont were members of the U.S. Climate Alliance. This is a coalition of states that are committed to reducing GHG emissions consistent with the 2015 Paris Agreement, which was brokered by the UN under the UNFCCC.

Under the Paris Agreement, each nation pledges a voluntary commitment to reduce its GHG emissions or take other measures to combat climate change. The goal is to limit warming to less than 2℃ (3.6℉) by the end of the century, as compared with preindustrial levels.

Obama entered the United States into the international agreement via executive action, arguing that it was not a treaty and did not require Senate approval. The United States pledged to reduce its GHG emissions by 26 percent to 28 percent by 2025, as compared with 2005 levels. Obama believed his strict tailpipe GHG limits and the Clean Power Plan would enable the nation to reach this goal.

Months after taking office, Trump announced his intention to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement. However, official withdrawal takes four years to complete and cannot commence until the agreement has been in effect for a year. Thus, as of 2019 the nation was still a party to the agreement.

Overall, U.S. GHG emissions peaked in 2007 and then began trending downward. The decrease is attributed to economy-wide energy efficiency improvements, state climate protection actions, greater use of alternative fuels, and replacement of coal with cleaner-burning natural gas at many U.S. power plants. It remains to be seen if future government policies will accelerate or reverse the downward trend and leave a lasting impact on national GHG emissions.

DMU Timestamp: February 27, 2021 01:26





Image
0 comments, 0 areas
add area
add comment
change display
Video
add comment

Quickstart: Commenting and Sharing

How to Comment
  • Click icons on the left to see existing comments.
  • Desktop/Laptop: double-click any text, highlight a section of an image, or add a comment while a video is playing to start a new conversation.
    Tablet/Phone: single click then click on the "Start One" link (look right or below).
  • Click "Reply" on a comment to join the conversation.
How to Share Documents
  1. "Upload" a new document.
  2. "Invite" others to it.

Logging in, please wait... Blue_on_grey_spinner