CQ WEEKLY – COVER STORY
STATE OF THE UNION PREVIEW
Feb. 9, 2013 – 2:45 p.m.

On Climate, Obama Holds the Reins

By Geof Koss, CQ Staff

CUT AND DRIED: Extreme weather in recent years, such as a prolonged drought in the Midwest where this Kansas farmer struggles, has helped convince Americans that action is needed to address climate change. (JOHN MOORE/GETTY IMAGES)

Environmentalists and others worried about climate change were heartened by the prominence that President Barack Obama gave the issue in his second inaugural address. Obama’s first years in office had been frustrating for those who want to take steps such as limiting greenhouse gas emissions — a frustration that climaxed with the abject failure in 2010 of congressional negotiations over climate change legislation.

At his swearing in, though, Obama’s words soared as he pledged to “respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.”

Not much has changed in Congress, where the partisan gridlock almost guarantees inaction on any kind of significant global-warming legislation. As scientists become more certain about the causes and consequences of the warming planet, political opponents are just as determined not to act.

But to achieve dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, Obama doesn’t need Congress. A landmark 2007 Supreme Court decision gives the administration the regulatory tools to proceed on its own, and without the constraints of another campaign, Obama is free to go ahead with tough environmental regulations that were put on hold until after the election.

Obama’s EPA already is moving to limit emissions by new power plants under the Clean Air Act, and environmentalists are encouraged that his second term may yield regulatory curbs on existing power plants and industrial polluters. Nominating John Kerry — a favorite of environmentalists since he led efforts to pass a Senate climate bill — as secretary of State further indicated Obama’s commitment to taking on global warming in his second term.

Former Vice President Al Gore, who shared a Nobel Peace Prize for his work on global warming, noted in a CNN interview that Obama devoted more words in his inaugural speech to climate change than to any other subject. “I was very happy about that,” Gore said. “And I think he will follow through.”

The administration can still expect resistance from congressional Republicans, but Democratic gains in the last election virtually ensure that opponents of EPA regulation lack the votes to roll back new regulations.

For instance, Illinois Republican John Shimkus, a senior member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, says his party will continue to make a case that the EPA should not address climate change “by regulation and by fiat.”

“But,” Shimkus continues, “I understand the law and I understand court rulings and I understand the playing field. I just hope the administration understands the effect on jobs and the economy and the increased cost of energy.”

With polls showing growing popular support for action on climate change in the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy, even some congressional Republicans are willing to talk about global warming.

“As we see a change in our energy dynamic, there is also a very keen awareness about energy production, energy consumption, that demands attention to the environmental aspect as well,” says Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, the ranking Republican on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

Murkowski says measures to mitigate climate change should be “part and parcel” of a “no regrets” energy program to reduce greenhouse gases, increase efficiency and bolster resilience to storms, droughts and floods.

On Climate, Obama Holds the Reins

“Raising our energy costs, imposing the mandates, other heavy-handed ideas that are out there for reducing greenhouse gas emissions — they’re not going to pass Congress,” she says. “We’ve already tried that once.”

Regulatory Approach

Obama put climate change at the top of the political agenda in his 2008 campaign, when he expressed hope that his nomination would mark the “moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”

In the heady early days of the new administration, there was progress on legislation to establish a market-based, economywide system for capping greenhouse gas emissions; it passed the then-Democratic House in June 2009.

Then things bogged down in the Senate. Kerry spent most of 2010 brokering a bipartisan package with South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham and Connecticut independent Joseph I. Lieberman only to see the talks blow up when Graham walked away. Mid-term elections gave control of the House to Republicans skeptical about climate change and opposed to government regulation.

With the legislative strategy doomed, the White House began flexing its regulatory muscle. The 2007 Supreme Court decision required EPA regulation under the Clean Air Act if global warming was found to pose a danger to public health. The EPA issued, in 2009, an endangerment finding that triggered a regulatory response.

Facing the threat of regulation, automakers agreed to double the fuel economy of their vehicle fleets by 2025. The EPA, meanwhile, set emissions rules for new power plants that will dramatically reduce emissions. Environmentalists hope that, with the elections over, the EPA will take the next, more contentious step and limit emissions by existing power plants, oil refineries and other industrial polluters.

“Seventy percent of the carbon emissions come from a combination of the electricity sector, the industrial sector and the transportation sector,” says Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer, who had backed the failed efforts to enact a cap-and-trade climate bill. “And that’s a lot.” If the EPA fully exercises that authority, says the California Democrat, “we’ll make tremendous progress.”

In fact, the United States has already has made strides in reducing emissions. Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in the first quarter of 2012 fell to the lowest level in two decades, according to the Energy Information Administration. Although the sluggish economy was a factor, the recent glut of inexpensive, domestic natural gas has prompted power companies to switch from coal to cleaner gas. Gasoline demand also has fallen, as motorists drive less and shift to more-efficient cars. And wind- and solar-power production has doubled in the past four years.

A recent analysis by the World Resources Institute found that clamping down on power plants, natural-gas systems and powerful greenhouse gases known as hydrofluorocarbons — in concert with state efforts to increase renewable power sources and energy efficiency — would enable the United States to meet its international pledges to reduce emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels by the end of the decade, even without new federal legislation.

Although emissions legislation stands no chance in this Congress, more-targeted bills might. Strengthening infrastructure to withstand severe storms, for example, is an area that even some skeptics of human responsibility for climate change are willing to discuss.

Congress last month appropriated $50.5 billion in emergency aid to areas hard-hit by Sandy, including money for long-term storm protection projects. And senators from New York, New Jersey and Delaware are seeking authorization for more storm resiliency spending in the next water resources bill.

Another area of potential bipartisan cooperation is energy efficiency. Promoting efficiency can reduce energy demand and carbon emissions while promoting energy independence, job creation and operating-cost reduction.

On Climate, Obama Holds the Reins

In the waning hours of the last Congress, lawmakers cleared a scaled-down energy efficiency bill that requires technical changes to federal energy efficiency standards for appliances and requires better coordination of Energy Department research programs. The bipartisan Senate sponsors, New Hampshire Democrat Jeanne Shaheen and Ohio Republican Rob Portman, plan to try again to pass a more ambitious efficiency bill, which would encourage stricter building standards and support financing for efficiency improvements.


In the weeks ahead, Obama’s biggest climate-related challenge is likely to come from his own supporters. The president faces the decision of whether to sign off on construction of the 1,700-mile Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry crude oil from the tar sands of Western Canada to Gulf Coast refineries.

Obama is being pressured by business interests, labor unions and the Canadian government to approve the project, which also enjoys public support. But environmentalists say the pipeline would encourage further development of the tar sands, significantly increasing carbon emissions. Critics are planning a rally on the National Mall this month and are counting on Kerry — whose department is reviewing the Keystone project — to weigh in with the president against approval.

Environmentalists who cheered Obama’s inaugural remarks on climate change say that approval of the pipeline would stain his legacy. “I think it would be a terrible message,” says Sen. Bernard Sanders, a Vermont independent.

“Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and more powerful storms. The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition, we must lead it.”

— Obama’s second inaugural address,Washington, Jan. 21

Status of the issue: Congress hasn’t taken up climate legislation since 2009, when the House passed a bill that would have established a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions; a Senate version was never taken up on the floor. During Obama’s second term, regulatory actions — including fuel efficiency standards for vehicles and EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions — will be a central part of the administration’s plan to move ahead without Congress.

Lauren Gardner contributed to this report.