Political pundits and observers agree that the United States is going through a very colorful legislative period. Even though we have entered the “carbon era,” a raft of major legislative action is not yet materialized. Governments around the world are slow to enact carbon emission restrictions, even though there are many related initiatives on the table. Current federal energy legislation has been changing considerably as it moves from committee to committee, indicating how politically volatile it is.
Everybody agrees that climate issues are a cause for concern, but there are many other factors including the economy, financial regulation and immigration. Congress must act to put in place federal energy legislation if we are to meet the 80% reductions proposed by the year 2050. A cap and trade scheme simply has to be in place, but critics argue that this would just push up energy costs and cause even more economic hardship than we are experiencing, post recession.
It is possible that the EPA could act as an agency if federal energy legislation is not passed in 2010. Without a stringent carbon trading scheme in place, the EPA could use its powers as ratified by the Supreme Court to take potential action under the Clean Air Act.
The EPA could seek to impose considerable restrictions on either new and/or existing air polluters, essentially achieving through other means a significant reduction in carbon emissions. However, the Clean Air Act was originally designed to cover a different slate of air pollutants and few believe that EPA action could be as effective as federal energy legislation. EPA action could be far more invasive and be less “tailor-made” for the problem at hand.
The political landscape is highly volatile as midterm elections loom in 2010. Like a swinging pendulum, many expect there to be a shift in power, the Democratic Party losing control of the Senate. Should this happen, the Republicans are generally in opposition to a carbon trading scheme, at least one which has such power as the one proposed under the ACES Act.
Emissions from vehicular sources are restricted from the year 2016 according to new rules put forward by the EPA. Fuel efficiency standards must be increased to an average of 35.5 miles per gallon, which will itself significantly reduce greenhouse gases in the future. The EPA is obliged to regulate stationary sources of carbon emissions as well, although how far it can go depends on whether Congress agrees to allocate the amount of budget required to do so, anyway.
The progress of federal energy legislation should be of interest to every business owner. It should become clear that if carbon is going to be regulated in any significant way, then each business will be required to account for its energy use and its calculated carbon footprint. At the very least, each business owner should be working out how to measure and control the assets in its possession.
While smaller organizations might think that cap and trade will only affect larger polluters, this is a head in the sand approach which will not work anymore. Some have said that EPA legislation will only affect organizations that are responsible for more than 25,000 tons of carbon per annum, but industry lobbying groups have already said that they would push to make sure that every single business faces its own fair share of the problem through accountability.
Daniel Stouffer has a lot of data about the Federal energy legislation and how a visit to www.verisae.com can benefit you.
0 Responses
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.