E.P.A. Limit on Gases to Pose Risk to Obama and Congress

Source: New York Times

WASHINGTON — With the federal government set to regulate climate-altering gases from factories and power plants for the first time, the Obama administration and the new Congress are headed for a clash that carries substantial risks for both sides. While only the first phase of regulation takes effect on Sunday, the administration is on notice that if it moves too far and too fast in trying to curtail the ubiquitous gases that are heating the planet it risks a Congressional backlash that could set back the effort for years.

But the newly muscular Republicans in Congress could also stumble by moving too aggressively to handcuff the Environmental Protection Agency, provoking a popular outcry that they are endangering public health in the service of their well-heeled patrons in industry. “These are hand grenades, and the pins have been pulled,” said William K. Reilly, administrator of the environmental agency under the first President George Bush. He said that the agency was wedged between a hostile Congress and the mandates of the law, with little room to maneuver. But he also said that anti-E.P.A. zealots in Congress should realize that the agency was acting on laws that Congress itself passed, many of them by overwhelming bipartisan margins.

President Obama vowed as a candidate that he would put the United States on a path to addressing climate change by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas pollutants. He offered Congress wide latitude to pass climate change legislation, but held in reserve the threat of E.P.A. regulation if it failed to act. The deeply polarized Senate’s refusal to enact climate change legislation essentially called his bluff. With Mr. Obama’s hand forced by the mandates of the Clean Air Act and a 2007 Supreme Court decision, his E.P.A. will impose the first regulation of major stationary sources of greenhouse gases starting Jan. 2.

For now, administration officials are treading lightly, fearful of inflaming an already charged atmosphere on the issue and mindful that its stated priorities are job creation and economic recovery. Officials are not seeking a major confrontation over carbon regulation, which offers formidable challenges even in a less stressed economic and political climate. “If the administration gets it wrong, we’re looking at years of litigation, legislation and public and business outcry,” said a senior administration official who asked not to be identified so as not to provide an easy target for the incoming Republicans. “If we get it right, we’re facing the same thing.”

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/31/science/earth/31epa.html

As seen with Energy Conservation it is much more politically expedient to "Mandate" Green Tech then to allow the Wall St Casino run any sort of "Cap and Trade"

is not all that it is cracked up to be in our Capitalistic society. As an example.

NC has many coal fired power plants..Duke power.

They could, with Cap and Trade, buy renewable carbon credits from Texas power plants. And keep right on polluting the air. Texas power plants aren't even online. Wind energy produces very little energy...sorry to say. About roughly 17%of the number that the corporations purport.

New England has already instituted Cap and Trade. 40 million dollars worth of energy was paid by New England rate payers for power not produced. There was a lawsuit going all the way to the Supreme Court. Of course, the people lost.

A good comparison is health care. Nothing wrong with that. But our US brand of Capitalistic health care is just a euphemism.

Not "Well Hung", or "Melt-in-your-panties HOT".

Dawg, the NYT has gone from 'newspaper of record' to 'Jeebus, that's funny' faster than I could have believed.

and turning US into a corporatist state. We need cap and trade or anything else that lessens our dependence on fossil fuels and put the money into R&D for solar, wind, storage batteries, whatever's needed for Code Green.

What are we waiting for?

(couldn't resist)

Along with 'manufactured consent,' concocted by their stooges in the media.

The pundits will minimize the danger and belch about Sarah Palin's new shoes or eyeglasses or bearskin rug.

No matter how much we kick and scream, they'll use the corporatist media approval to act as our voice.

Looks like the green technology way is only way to go, but without government regulation, it won't overcome the polluters.

For our own part, we must reduce, reuse, recycle and re-create our society from the ground up in whatever choices we're left.