Views and debates on climate change policy
Home | Panelists | Staff Blog | RSS

THE QUESTION

Should EPA or Congress set CO2 limits?

While Sen. Lisa Murkowski's (R-Alaska) amendment to bar the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act narrowly failed, sources indicated the Democratic leadership will allow John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WVa.) to offer a similar amendment later this summer. Should EPA keep pressing ahead with new greenhouse gas rules, or should it accept Congress will shape the future of any mandatory limits on carbon dioxide?"

Posted by Rachel Saslow on June 16, 2010 9:03 AM
FROM THE PANEL

Whatever works, just do it

The period from January to May was the warmest on record. Hello! Whether Congress or EPA, the only path that is unacceptable is inaction.

Posted by Reid Detchon, on June 17, 2010 7:34 PM

EPA should proceed with market-based regulations

The EPA can and must proceed with new rules--but it must do so using market-based mechanisms that will not clash with possible future congressional actions. It is bound by law to proceed, but it can move wisely by laying groundwork that will come at the lowest possible costs to business and will mesh well with the legislation Congress will hopefully enact someday soon.

Posted by Richard L. Revesz, on June 17, 2010 11:05 AM

Energy policy is beyond EPA's mission

The first thing that Congress should now do is to make its intent clear by legislative action, either by passing Senator Rockefeller's proposal or using the appropriations process to deny EPA funds to regulate CO2.

Posted by William O'Keefe, on June 16, 2010 11:08 AM

It's about carbon, not Congress

So the good news, I guess, is that Murkowski's resolution went down. The bad news is that in a 60-vote Senate, it's hard to imagine a climate bill, or even a mere energy bill that does something about coal-fired plants, getting through.

Posted by Ezra Klein, on June 16, 2010 10:52 AM

EPA is an expensive fallback

The EPA route isn't going to be the best way to do it because it may well result in higher costs for the economy than is actually necessary to reduce emissions.

Posted by David Hone, on June 15, 2010 4:56 PM

FEATURED COMMENTS

jfv123: EPA bureaucrats won't have the guts to regulate carbon. The'll be out of their cushy jobs when Congress refuses to appropriate funds for EPA...

Pilot1: This is ridiculous. We have a bunch of ideologues at EPA who based on the flawed theory of Global Warming want to regulate CO2 which is a na...

Make a Comment  |  All Comments (6)

 
Contact Us
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company