The email sent will contain a link to this article, the article title, and an article excerpt (if available). For security reasons, your IP address will also be included in the sent email.
last few weeks have demonstrated an unfortunate juxtaposition between the U.S. federal climate policy debate and the scientific case for climate action. Strong evidence for the need to regulate greenhouse gas emissions continues to pile up, but meanwhile last week the U.S. House Appropriations Committee passed drastic cuts to environmental regulations in the Fiscal Year 2012 Interior and Environment Appropriations Bill.
The bill proposes $1.5 billion in cuts from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s budget. Members of Congress supporting these cuts hold that the EPA is too costly and hampers economic growth. The bill would cut climate change spending by $83 million, or 22 percent below last year’s budget. One of the many prohibitions in the bill prevents the EPA from regulating stationary greenhouse gas emissions. EPA’s regulation of climate-altering greenhouse gases (GHGs) under the Clean Air Act, which will be finalized in 2012, are the only federal greenhouse gas regulations on the table, as the U.S. has not passed comprehensive climate legislation, and the prospects for doing so in the near future seem dim. Negotiations on the House and Senate floor will likely alter the contents of the bill with a Democratic majority in the Senate that is very likely to refuse to withdraw EPA’s authority to regulate GHGs and impose major cuts on its budget. Also, President Obama threatened to veto the bill. Still, the proposed cuts highlight the strong disconnect between climate science and climate policy within the United States.
Return to Article