Carbon emissions out of feds’ reach

BOISE - Federal action agencies have a good understanding of what they must do under the Endangered Species Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.

Not one of them was designed to let the U.S. government control greenhouse gases, said Michael Bogert, legal counsel to Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne.

“As long as these laws are designed to have agencies issue permits allowing certain activities to go on, they cannot contribute to the control of greenhouse gases,” Bogert told the second annual University of Idaho President’s Sustainability Symposium.

A good example is the polar bear, recently listed as threatened by Kempthorne, he said.

“In his decision, the secretary said no regulation exists to regenerate sea ice,” he said. “A similar ruling came from the Environmental Protection Agency after a lawsuit asked whether the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases emitted by new vehicles under the Clean Air Act.” Bogert said agency heads contended that the Clean Air Act was not the best way to address the issue, and it would have a “profound effect” on nearly every sector of the economy.

“The Bush administration has only about 90 more days in office. It has a clear public record of recognizing that climate change is important and needs to be addressed,” Bogert said. “The question is if the current legislative and statutory authorities we have right now are adequate to do the job.”

The symposium’s luncheon speaker was Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, who said increasing population means increasing demand for clean, safe water for drinking and all other purposes.

Part of that involves upgrading the aging infrastructure of dams, water treatment plants and delivery systems, he said.

“There are programs and discussion about how to find the hundreds of billions of dollars needed to bring that infrastructure back up to snuff and some proposed legislation,” Crapo said. “None have made it through Congress.”

That isn’t going to change until grassroots concern pushes Congress to act, he said.

Asked if it would take a tragedy such as the bridge collapse in Minneapolis-St. Paul, which brought action on aging highway infrastructure, to mobilize the nation, Crapo said, “I hope not.”

One problem is that Congress is currently immobilized by divisive, partisan and negative politics, he said.

“It wasn’t caused by the Clinton or Bush administrations, but it’s there,” Crapo said. “The solution for that must also come from the grassroots. The American people need to say they’re fed up with it and in fact be fed up and demand change.”

Given that atmosphere, few issues will be resolved unless they grow out of collaboration between all stakeholders, he said. Proposals offered by other sources are far more likely to fail in Congress or in the courts.

“There are roadblocks to collaboration,” he said. “People are not yet convinced at a deep enough level of the value of collaborative efforts. They’re suspicious that the other side will gain at their expense. That will change as we have more successes.”

There are always those who don’t like collaboration. They want the whole loaf or nothing at all. Others want certain groups or persons totally excluded.

“Collaboration is also expensive,” Crapo said. “We need more money to fund an infrastructure and help collaboration start. There is proposed legislation to provide funds for startup projects, followed by various levels of matching funds for pilot projects and full implementation. If we have a lame duck session of Congress, we might be able to get that through.”

By Patricia R. McCoy

Sourced From

What's Next?