How Obama Can Tackle Climate Change Without Congress

NJ ^ | 1-22-2012 | Coral Davenport

[Sir Napsalot]

President Obama’s Inaugural Address was his boldest, clearest signal to date that he intends to take on the challenge of fighting climate change as a signature achievement of his presidency....

But what, specifically, can Obama do? For now, it seems highly unlikely that he’ll be able to get a bill through Congress. After taking office in 2009 intent on pushing broad climate legislation through Congress, he hit resistance and the bill died in 2010. .... the president does have in his executive arsenal one powerful--and extremely controversial--.... he could wield without any help from Congress.

Under the terms of a Supreme Court ruling and the nation’s clean-air laws, the Environmental Protection Agency is required to issue a regulation that would force existing industrial polluters, such as coal-fired power plants and oil refineries, to slash their emissions of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming. The rule could have a profound environmental impact by reducing the nation’s global-warming pollutants by up to 20 percent.

.....

The Obama administration has sat on the rule affecting existing polluters for months to avoid issuing a potential job-killer in an election year. That excuse is now gone. ... Earlier this month, in a rare show of unity, 70 environmental organizations sent a letter to the White House, insisting that Obama has “the authority under existing law to achieve urgently needed reductions in the carbon pollution that is disrupting our climate and damaging our health.” ....

Environmental groups hope the State of the Union address will offer a clear signal on what concrete steps Obama intends to take next. “We’re looking for the president to clearly indicate that EPA will put forward something on coal plants as the biggest polluter,” said Dan Lashof, director of the climate and clean-air program for the National Resources Defense Council.

[Sir Napsalot]

Uncertainty about climate change is reason for more aggressive action .... researchers “analyzed the optimal level and dynamic properties of the carbon tax in the face of stochastic and irreversible climate change and its interaction with economic factors, including business cycle fluctuations and preferences about risk.” He he Ha ha ...... "social cost of carbon" a new term you might encounter more often

[Still Thinking]

Two points:

1) Anything done with an Imperial Order without Congress can be undone with one as well. In fact, I think Congress can even undo them. That’s no reason, from their point of view not to do them, if Congress or a future POTUS rescinds them, they’re no worse off than if he hadn’t done it.

BUT

2) Be careful what you wish for. Next time there’s a Republican POTUS opposed by a Dem Congress, do you want HIM doing the same thing? You’ll have given up the right to complain. Congress is the legislative body for a reason, and it’s hypocritical as well as stupid, to advocate bypassing them, but only for agendas you support. (Yes, I realize I’m attempting to talk reason to liberal “logic”.)

[TheOldLady]

Life on Earth comprises carbon-based units. Their carbon tax is a levy on life itself.

It could not be more unconstitutional if they tried to make it so.