|
The already slim chances of meaningful US climate change
legislation being implemented before the end of President
Bush's term in office receded further recently, when the US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) again delayed a landmark
ruling on whether carbon emissions could be regulated under
the Clean Air Act.
Following a legal challenge from a group of 12 US states,
the Supreme Court ordered the EPA
to rule officially on whether climate change represents a
threat to public health and, as such, means that carbon emissions
can be regulated under the existing US Clean Air Act.
However, despite a bombardment of criticism from green groups
and state legislators, the EPA has consistently declined to
reach a decision and, last week, announced that it was further
extending the period of public consultation on the ruling
- effectively delaying an official ruling until the next president
is in the White House.
Agency administrator, Stephen Johnson insisted that the US
EPA's work, so far, had raised further questions that needed
to be addressed through continued consultation. He also hinted
that the decision should not be left to the EPA, telling reporters
that it was for elected officials to deliver climate change
legislation.
"If our nation is truly serious about regulating greenhouse
gases, the Clean Air Act is the wrong tool for the job" -
he said. "It's really at the feet of Congress to come up with
good legislation that will cut through what is likely to be
decades of regulation and litigation."
The decision comes amidst fresh reports that the White House
has put pressure on the EPA to delay any decision that could
result in fresh carbon regulation.
According to reports in the Washington Post, the administration
urged the EPA to use low oil price estimates in its calculations
in order to reduce the projected economic benefits that would
arise from carbon regulations.
|
