Frequently referred
to as the Obama Administration’s ‘Plan B Strategy’ to meet its
international pledge to lower GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 17%
by 2020 and 80% by 2050, EPA began putting in place
regulations for tackling emissions under
the U.S. Clean Air Act when climate legislation failed to
pass through the US Senate last year.class=”apple-style-span”> 
 

A 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision in the landmark
Massachusetts v. EPA case obliged the EPA to determine whether
carbon dioxide emissions endangered human health and welfare. In
December 2009, the EPA made such a determination declaring carbon
dioxide was a health hazard, thereby paving the way for the
regulation of emissions from sources such as power plants and
factories, cars and trucks. 

At the time (pre-Copenhagen), EPA Administrator Lisa
Jackson said that the decision is overwhelmingly supported by
science and puts the U.S. on a path to finding practical solutions
to climate change and giving businesses and investors certainty in
investments geared toward clean-energy technology. The rules won’t
burden small businesses, Jackson added.

Buttressed by this decision, EPA has been
laying down the regulatory tools to control emissions from
tailpipes and smokestacks. 

For cars and trucks, EPA regulations include
standards for fuel efficiency and GHG emissions that will begin
with the model year 2012. Canada has acted in tandem with the U.S.
in this regard to ensure harmonization of these regulations and
standards.

Other regulations cover large power plants,
manufacturers and oil refiners. EPA estimates that regulating this
group of air pollution sources will affect 70% of the nation’s GHG
emissions. 

The EPA’s actions have already
come under congressional attack - from both Houses of Congress and
from both sides of the political aisle -
and these assaults have intensified as a result
of the power shift in Congress toward the Republican Party
following the mid-term elections in November. 
  

On February 19, the Republican-led House of
Representatives voted to cut federal spending by US$61billion in an
effort to tackle the country’s US$14.13 trillion national debt. The
Republican bill includes a US$3 billion cut to the EPA and a swath
of amendments including controversial measures that would prevent
the EPA from regulating carbon emissions, weaken provisions on
the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, and cut off funding for
the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. 

While the Bill was presented as an effort to
help balance the budget, observers have suggested that in reality
it is an attempt to roll back what little progress that has been
made to date in cleaning up America’s air and
water.

Speaking yesterday March 2, 2011) before the
U.S. House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and
Related Agencies, EPA Administrator Lois Jackson said “As head of
the EPA, I am accountable for ensuring that we squeeze every drop
of public health protection out of every dollar we are
given.  So I support the tough cuts in the
President’s proposed
budget.”  

But, she added “I am equally accountable for
pointing out when cuts become detrimental to public
health.  Without adequate funding, EPA would be
unable to implement or enforce the laws that protect Americans’
health, livelihoods, and pastimes.” 

The consequences could be dire. She warned.
  “Big polluters would flout legal restrictions
on dumping contaminants into the air, into rivers, and onto the
ground.  Toxic plumes already underground would
reach drinking water supplies, because ongoing work to contain them
would stop.  There would be no EPA grant money to
fix or replace broken water treatment systems. 
And the standards that EPA is set to establish for harmful air
pollutants from smokestacks and tailpipes would remain missing from
a population of sources that is not static but
growing.” 

The partisan politics surrounding the EPA is
an unfolding story that likely will become more heated in the
months ahead, which will compound the uncertain future of the Obama
Administration’s climate change
policy. 

The implications of this uncertainty extend
far beyond U.S. borders and will have particular relevance for
Canada’s climate policy choices and directions.
  The integrated nature of our economies
necessitates some degree of harmonization of our climate policy
with that of the United States. 

“Harmonization, where possible and when
feasible, make sense for Canada,” said David McLaughlin, President
and CEO of the National Roundtable on the Environment and the
Economy (NTREE).  “But in the face of persistent U.S.
uncertainty as to its own climate policy future, Canada will need
to look to its own options, in the right way, at the right time,”
he added. 

A recent NTREE report “href=”http://www.climateprosperity.ca/eng/studies/canada-us/report/canada-us-report-eng.php”
target=”_blank”>style=”mso-bidi-font-style: normal;”>Parallel Paths:
Canada-U.S. Climate Policy
Choices”
argued that Canada should adopt a phased-in
approach to climate harmonization policy with the U.S. to avoid
delay in emissions reductions and maintain economic
competitiveness.  

Such a measured approach would allow Canada to
achieve significant greenhouse gas reductions over the next 10
years even in the face of uncertain U.S. policy, would address
competitiveness concerns for industry, and would pave the way
towards greater harmonization later as American policy direction
emerges, says the report.

Environment Minister Peter Kent, reacting to
the NTREE report, indicated that Canada would not be going it alone
with respect to a cap and trade system for carbon trading and
reaffirmed his government’s strategy of proceeding in harmony with
policy developments as and when they emerged below the
border. 

That being said, differences in our energy
economies and greenhouse gas emission profiles would give rise to
the need for different economic and environmental imperatives, even
with a harmonized policy approach. This would be difficult enough
were there a clear set of policy goals, regulatory standards, and
measurable emissions reduction targets in place in the
U.S.

But continued uncertainties in Washington
means that Canada’s path to emissions management is equally
uncertain - at least at the national
level.

On Thursday a bill was introduced in the House of
Representatives that would permanently prevent the Environmental
Protection Agency from regulating emissions blamed for global
warming. A href=”http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/3/close-the-epa/”
target=”_blank”>Washington Times
editorial yesterday advocating shutting
down the EPA in order to trim federal the budget, because “This
outfit has become little more than an advocacy group for trendy
leftist causes operating on the public’s
dime.” 

Shutting down the EPA is unlikely, but a two
year delay in the implementation of emissions reduction rules, a
measure proposed by Senator Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia
Democrat, likely could take hold.

Perhaps in anticipation of such, the EPA
announced this week it would push back the deadlines for certain
emitters to begin reporting their
emissions. 

As noted, the battle to save Plan B that is
unfolding below the border will have a profound spill over
implications for Canada. Time will tell how significant are these
implications and what price we might pay for the delay caused by
the continuation of these uncertainties.