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

Planet Panelists

Archive: February 21, 2010 - February 27, 2010

The legal responsibility to address danger

The current proposals by EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions result directly from the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in 2007 that greenhouse gases are a form of air pollution subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act.

By Donald F. Boesch | February 26, 2010; 10:42 AM ET | Comments (6)

A potentially costly pathway forward

Given the gridlock in Congress over the climate bill, is the Obama administration's fallback strategy to let EPA regulate greenhouse gas emissions a good idea? There is no doubt that the USA needs to act from a federal perspective on...

By David Hone | February 26, 2010; 10:29 AM ET | Comments (3)

EPA strategy would be enviornmentally unreliable

First, let's get our terms right: The possibility that EPA will regulate greenhouse gas emissions was decidedly not "the Obama administration's fallback strategy." It's come about because the Supreme Court held that EPA is bound under the Clean Air Act to determine whether those emissions pose a danger...

By Robert J. Shapiro | February 25, 2010; 7:24 AM ET | Comments (1)

A sub-optimal course of action

Like many questions regarding climate change, the answer has both a political and a substantive component. But in this case, neither provides an obvious response.

By Bernard Finel | February 23, 2010; 3:26 PM ET | Comments (1)

A prescription for an economic disaster

It is a horrible idea and EPA, given the recent comments by Administrator Lisa Jackson, may be coming to the same conclusion. Since greenhouse gas emissions are the byproduct of energy use to fuel economic growth and raise our standard of living, EPA regulation would inevitably involve attempting to regulate and manage the economy.

By William O'Keefe | February 23, 2010; 2:44 PM ET | Comments (6)

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company