EPA deems greenhouse-gas emissions health risk

WASHINGTON — Opening the door to possible broad new federal regulation on U.S. power plants, heavy industry and automobiles, the Obama administration Monday officially declared that greenhouse gases produced by burning coal and oil are a danger to public health.

"Look at the droughts, the flooding, the changes in diseases, the changes in migratory habits, the changes in our water cycle and climate that we now find affect human health and welfare," Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson said in announcing the so-called "endangerment finding."

The finding is a key step in a legal process that would allow the EPA to act alone — without further action by Congress — to develop tough rules for emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases that scientists blame for global warming.

The finding also is the latest step in the Obama administration's carrot-and-stick strategy for keeping pressure on Congress to approve a comprehensive climate bill, while at the same time giving the president an alternative approach if the legislation bogs down.

For political and other reasons, the White House has said repeatedly that it would prefer to deal with the complex, emotion-charged issue through congressional action.

On the other hand, climate legislation would affect a broad swath of the U.S. economy, could raise consumer prices and manufacturing costs in at least some areas, and faces formidable opposition from business groups, Republican lawmakers and some Democrats.

The challenge of passing a bill is all the greater at a time when Congress is preoccupied with the even more controversial health-care overhaul and voters seem more concerned about jobs and the economy than about long-term climate change.

As a result, President Obama — who made action on global warming a signature promise during last year's presidential campaign — also has moved forward on the alternative track: direct administrative action by the EPA.

And, coming on the eve of Obama's trip to the climate summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, the endangerment announcement gives the White House something positive to point to in the absence of congressional action.

At the same time, even with Monday's announcement, the White House has not committed itself to pushing ahead with the regulatory process even if climate legislation bogs down.

Criticism of the EPA announcement came quickly.

"The elected Congress, not an administrative agency, should write the laws governing the economy's response to climate change," said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., chairman of the Senate Republican Conference. "The costs of compliance with the EPA's unilateral announcement today could run into hundreds of billions of dollars a year — costs borne by average Americans through huge increases in their electric bills and at the gas pump. This is an especially bad idea when unemployment is at 10 percent."

Jeff Holmstead, former EPA air administrator in the George W. Bush administration, also expressed concern that new paperwork requirements would bring new construction "to a standstill."

"If the agency's eventual regulatory approach is mishandled," Holmstead said, "it could result in profound consequences for the economy with little environmental benefit to show for it."

Climate legislation also is strongly opposed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, although its position has drawn criticism from some prominent members.

Jackson said the endangerment finding was not intended to pressure Congress and that legislation is still the best way to address climate pollution and move toward clean energy.

In economic terms, some analysts say, complying with new emissions regulations would be much more expensive than using the "cap-and-trade" provision in the climate bill.

The cap-and-trade system, under which companies could buy and trade permits to cover gases they release, is designed to minimize costs to emitters. Major emitters could use permits to spread the cost of reducing their emissions over time.

If the EPA imposes rules, companies likely would have to move more quickly to make costly changes in their operations.

Even so, Jackson said, "I do not believe this is an 'either-or' proposition. I actually see this as a 'both-and.' I believe the Clean Air Act can complement legislative efforts."

But the long-anticipated announcement upped the ante for the administration and Democrats, especially because it came on the eve of Obama's departure for the global climate summit in Copenhagen.

"The vast body of evidence not only remains unassailable, it's grown stronger, and it points to one conclusion," Jackson said in announcing the decision. "Greenhouse gases from human activity are increasing at unprecedented rates and are adversely affecting our environment and threatening our health."

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the announcement's timing, on the first day of the Copenhagen summit, was a coincidence.

"This is part of a process that started more than two years ago," he said, "with a Supreme Court finding that the EPA should regulate greenhouse gases that threaten the public health because it's a pollutant."

Indeed, the administration has had the power to step up regulations since 2007, when the Supreme Court held that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are pollutants subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act.

In making the announcement Monday, Jackson said the administration "will not ignore science or the law any longer," and the EPA is "obligated" to take steps to reduce greenhouse pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

She said the move by the agency is meant to "complement" a comprehensive clean-energy reform, and the administration still plans to work with Congress on a climate-change bill that's acceptable to the president.