[2009.04.23] A green figleaf ??????

Climate change ????


 

 

 

A green figleaf ??????

 

 

 

Apr 23rd 2009

 

From The Economist print edition

 

 

 

 

The EPA’s decision on greenhouse gases provides a boost for gloomy greens

 

?????????????????????????????????

 

 

 

 

THE decision on April 17th by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that six greenhouse gases are a danger to the environment and to human health has come at a good time for the green lobby. It needed a boost; for hopes in Washington, DC, that Congress will pass legislation to control emissions before December, when the world gets together in Copenhagen to decide what to do when the Kyoto protocol runs out, are low—and falling.

 

 

 

 

4?17????????EPA???6??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????11??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

 

 

 

The EPA has been mulling the harmfulness of greenhouse gases since 2007, when, in a case brought by a coalition of states, cities and NGOs, the Supreme Court ruled that it should regulate greenhouse gases if they were found to be toxic. As expected, the EPA, now run by Lisa Jackson, who brings to the job 20 years of experience as a regulator who’s tough on business, gave a provisional ruling that they were; a final decision will come after a 60-day period of public consultation.

 

 

 

 

?2007???EPA??????????????????????????????????????NGOs????????????????????????????????????????????????Lisa Jackson???????????????20???????????EPA??????????????????????????????????????60?????????????????

 

 

 

 

Legislation to cap carbon emissions, though supported by the administration, is struggling to get through Congress. So greens are delighted, because the EPA’s decision allows emissions to be regulated under existing rules. Businesses and congressmen who dislike the idea of legislating to control emissions may now decide that a new law, over which they can have some influence, would be better than regulation through an old one. According to Edward Markey, co-author of the main cap-and-trade bill in the House, “it is no longer a choice between doing a bill or doing nothing. It is now a choice between regulation and legislation.”

 

 

 

 

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????EPA???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????Edward Markey?????????????????????????“????????????????????????????????????”

 

 

 

 

But the decision is not as momentous as it seems. It applies principally to emissions from motor vehicles, which are responsible for under a quarter of man-made carbon-dioxide in America. Attempts to extend it to other sources of greenhouse gases may prove more difficult and would almost certainly face challenges in court. And environmental cases tend to drag on and on. Massachusetts v EPA, the case that led to this decision, was filed six years ago; the Exxon Valdez case took 19 years. “The Jarndyce v Jarndyce factor is very strong in America,” according to Paul Bledsoe of the National Commission on Energy Policy. Advocates of control understandably prefer a legislative approach.

 

 

 

 

???????????????????????????????????????????????????1/4??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????Massachusetts v EPA?????6????????Exxon Valdez?????19????????????Paul Bledsoe???“Jarnduce v Jarndyce?????????”??????????????????????????

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks to the energetic sponsorship of Henry Waxman, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the cap-and-trade bill has momentum in the House. But Mr Waxman’s bill, which is regarded as extremely green in Washington, may have to be watered down if it is to gain the approval of its many opponents from coal states, in the Democratic as well as the Republican Party. And if it gets through the House—which, in some form, it probably will—its chances in the Senate are slim. They are reckoned to have shrunk lately, as the administration is seen as focusing more on health-care reform, thus using up time and political capital which might otherwise have been allocated to climate change.

 

 

 

 

???????????Henry Waxman????????????????????????????????????Waxman?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????——??????????——????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

 

 

 

Going to the Copenhagen conference without legislation in place will be embarrassing for America, especially since other bits of the world are forging ahead. In December, in the face of much opposition, especially from eastern Europe, the European Commission got member states to agree to its “20-20-20” plan to reduce emissions to 20% below 1990 levels by 2020. China’s economic stimulus package includes twice as much green spending as America’s does. If America’s legislators threaten to send the country’s representatives into the conference room naked, the EPA’s decision, which means that tailpipe emissions at least are likely to be regulated, has provided them with a figleaf.

 

 

 

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????11?????????????????????????????????????“20-20-20”???????2020???????????1990????20%??????????????????????2?,Men's shoes??????????????????????????????EPA???????????????????????????????????

 

 

（点击查看原文/来源链接）