jha’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Not Such a Good Path

  David --

  I think you dramatically overstate the benefits of trying to do a cap-and-trade system under the CAA without legislation.

  As a preamble, let me make clear that I believe the EPA is obligated to regulate GHGs under the Act, and not just from motor vehicles.  It will have to regulate from stationary sources as well.

  As for your arguments, first, I believe it is highly unlikely that an administrative effort to create cap-and-trade under the existing Act would be quicker than legislative change.  The reason is that any regulations that are this ambitious would be tied upon in Court and not implemented for years.  Even if eventually upheld in the courts, the rules would not be enforced for years.  See, e.g., the Clinton NAAQS revisions (or, for what happens when the regs fail, the Bush Administration CAIR rule).

  Second, I think you are mistaken to write that "a Clean Air Act carbon program would largely cover what the CAA already regulates."  Under current law, GHG regulation will require the EPA to regulate many thousands of facilities and buildings that are not currently covered by the Act, in part because so many facilities emit so much more CO2 than other regulated emissions (so they aren't major sources for other emissions, but would be for CO2).  So, for example, applying the Act to GHGs would, in a single stroke, increase the number of facilities covered by the PSD program tenfold (if not more). The effect of applying other provisions to GHGs could be equally expansive, particularly if (as I believe) the EPA is obligated to try and set a NAAQS, and require SIPs for GHGs.

  Third, I am not sure a regulatory system can do all that much to build on state efforts, particularly the regional trading efforts, as the various regional trading regimes are unenforceable until they are ratified by Congress under the Compacts clause.

  I could go on.

  The bottom line is that if you want cap-and-trade (or other significant reforms), then you should want legislation. The existing Act can impose lots of regulatory restrictions, but won't allow for particularly rational or efficient climate policy.

  Food for thought.

  Jonathan H. Adler
  On Some thoughts on the merits of regulating greenhouse gases via the Clean Air Act posted 11 months, 1 week ago 5 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Lomborg & Carbon Tax

  Dave --

  Just a small correction. Lomborg does endorse a carbon tax in his latest book.

  JHAOn NYT's Andy Revkin pens another stinker on the so-called 'center' of the climate debate posted 1 year, 12 months ago 42 Responses