In response to the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference December 7th through 18th, The Heritage Foundation is launching a video series to cover all the details and aspects of the climate summit. We’ll address all the angles (climate, energy, national security, sovereignty, trade, and more) and provide you with everything you need to know about Copenhagen.
Up first is Senior Policy Analyst on Energy & Environment Ben Lieberman discussing a 1997 Senate Resolution that should guide U.S. policy for Copenhagen.
Click here to view the embedded video.The importance of the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, passed unanimously with a 95-0 vote before the Kyoto Protocol, is two-fold.
• Specifically, the resolution states that the U.S. and other developed nations should not enter into a treaty requiring reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels and other greenhouse gasses unless it includes binding agreements from developing nations. Any attempt to reduce carbon dioxide in the U.S. will be futile in China and other fast-growing emitters are exempt. Having developing countries commit to a treaty to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in Copenhagen is highly unlikely to occur.
• The resolution also states that the U.S. should not enter into any treaty that “would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States.” The Kyoto Protocol, which the U.S. wisely chose not to be a signatory, called for a 5 percent reduction below 1990 baseline emissions levels. Not only did the U.S. outperform most of the countries that did sign the Kyoto Protocol in terms of emissions reductions, countries in the European Union ended up paying for it with a costly Carbon Trading Scheme. Although it was unsuccessful in reducing emissions, there was a massive cost in attempting to do so for Europe, estimated at $67.75 billion to $170.84 billion through 2008.
Bryd-Hagel should be the criteria the U.S. uses for the climate summit; any treaty that comes out of Copenhagen will in all likelihood fail at both. For all of Heritage’s work on the Copenhagen climate summit, visit our Copenhagen Consequences page.
As Congress tries to knock out the economy in one fell swoop with its economically dangerous cap and trade proposal, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking a different approach: proposing smaller, regulatory jabs at the economy with the intent to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions.
First, the EPA worked with the Department of Transportation to propose new vehicle standards - a 5 percent annual increase in fuel economy starting with the 2012 model year, reaching 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016. Last week, they announced the largest emitters of greenhouse gases must report their emissions.
Now, they’re going after large facilities. Just yesterday, “The Environmental Protection Agency announced plans to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, factories and oil refineries — a warning shot to Congress that if it does not move to curb global warming, the Obama administration will act on its own.”
In her speech, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said,
By using the power and authority of the Clean Air Act, we can begin reducing emissions from the nation’s largest greenhouse gas emitting facilities without placing an undue burden on the businesses that make up the vast majority of our economy. This is a common sense rule that is carefully tailored to apply to only the largest sources — those from sectors responsible for nearly 70 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions sources. This rule allows us to do what the Clean Air Act does best – reduce emissions for better health, drive technology innovation for a better economy, and protect the environment for a better future – all without placing an undue burden on the businesses that make up the better part of our economy.”
Although the newly proposed EPA rule will not apply to schools, restaurants and small businesses, it’s the large emitters of carbon dioxide that provide America with 85 percent of its energy needs. Regulating greenhouse gases with “the use of best technologies” will mean higher costs for energy passed on to schools, restaurants, small businesses, and of course, the consumer. Further, EPA’s attempt to exempt smaller entities is on flimsy legal ground and is not likely to withstand the inevitable and endless lawsuits from environmental activists
The Heritage Foundation’s analysis of the carbon capping Waxman-Markey bill project higher energy and other costs for a household of four - nearly $3,000 per year between 2012 and 2035. Gasoline prices will rise by 58 percent ($1.38 more per gallon) and average household electric rates will increase by 90 percent by 2035. And if the EPA is running the show, the micromanaging of our economy and the compliance costs that come along with it will only increase the costs.
On April 17, the EPA issued an endangerment finding, saying that global warming poses a serious threat to public health and safety. Interestingly, Jackson spoke as if 60-comment period on the endangerment finding and the EPA’s plan to regulate carbon dioxide was met with unanimous support. She said, “We have received more than 400,000 responses in the 60-day public comment period. And we soon expect a final document that will lay the foundation for reducing greenhouse emissions and confronting climate change.”
But through The Heritage Foundation’s StopEPA.com site, nearly 30,000 of you voiced your opinion against EPA regulations. Other organizations, such as The US Chamber of Commerce, American Solutions, FreedomWorks, and the Institute for Energy Research aggregated similar numbers, but there’s no mention of that.
Contrary to Administrator Jackson’s assertions, using the Clean Air Act to regulate CO2 would likely be the most expensive environmental regulation in history and will bypass the legislative process completely. While some Members of Congress undoubtedly support the EPA’s attempt to curb global warming, the fact that unelected and unaccountable EPA bureaucrats are trying to use backdoor rulemaking to reduce carbon dioxide makes it all the more objectionable.