Question1.
The H.R. 391 bill consisted of two sections stipulates about the definition of air pollutants related to greenhouse gases (GHG) resulting in climate change/global worming, and the authority of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). First of all, the bill’s framework can be analyzed through examining the question of whether the issues stem from a behavior fundamental to our lifestyle. One cause of climate change is our lifestyle choices, which depend on our values, and behaviors based on these values have brought population growth and excessive use of fossil fuels (Cohen, p.111). Someone may make much of just now economic development for improving current material affluence, while other people may take care of the future generation, grandchildren in the way to consider that we ourselves are living in the future and experiencing the negative impact. The perspective’s difference is resulted from the fact that the actual dangers of climate change and global worming will happen in the future. Representatively, if the carbon dioxide is included in the GHG, the use of emitter including cars may be more strictly controlled, which can bring the negative impact on economic growth.
The issue is also relevant to the ethical dimension in that poor countries and poor people are likely to be disproportionately influenced by the climate change, which may also worsen the environmental, social, and economic problems that lead to extreme poverty. We should take into account responsibility to reduce the threat of climate change/global warming for the weak and future generations.
Question2.
Though the H.R. 391 bill was introduced by Republican Mrs. Marsha Blackburn, the Obama administration has announced new standards for automobile fuel economy and global warming emissions in order to regulate the greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. The political conflict keeps unsettled. The counterattack of Congress occurred by two additional House bills: H.R. 4396 and H.R. 4572. On the other hand, as responses of government branch, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson laid out timetable for the GHG regulations on 2010 February 23, writing in a letter to lawmakers that she plans to start targeting large facilities such as power plants next year but won't target small emitters before 2016 (
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/22/AR2010022204829.html). The EPA finalized a timeline for regulating GHG on April 1, starting with the formal decision that no power plants, industrial facilities or other stationary sources will be federally controlled for greenhouse gas emissions before January 2011 (
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/30/epa-greenhouse-gas-regulations).
The GHG problem of H.R. 391 bill involves other political issue. Several lawmakers of Congress argue that the EPA has already been granted substantial unconstitutional powers and wield such big power as to ignore Congress’s legal responsibility. Therefore, H.R. 391 can be evaluated as one of bills that aim to reduce the authority of EPA to regulate the greenhouse gases emission (
http://www.jbs.org/energy-blog/5909-stop-the-unconstitutional-job-killing-epa-regulation-of-carbon-dioxide). If enacted, Blackburn bill would protect the U.S. economy and reassert Congress’s responsibility for national policymaking.
Question3.
We should consider the question of whether there is scientific certainty about the causes and effects of the problem. The earth’s climate is an extremely complex system, making it difficult to identify trends and their causes. However, there is certainty that greenhouse effect is making the planet warm and its climate change unlike a conventional pattern. Uncertainty of global problems exists since we do not have accurate measures of global environmental conditions and have never engineered technology on a global scale. If technical findings about components to bring the GHG were uncontroversial, supporters of the H.R. 391 will not oppose to involving elements such as the carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, and nitrous oxide in the term of air pollutants as EPA. Also, opponents to strong measures to reduce CO2 emissions tend not to believe that the cost of such measures exceeds the benefit (Cohen, p.112-113).
Many efforts for devising cost-effective substitutes for the technologies causing harms have been made. Some technologies focus on removing the gases from emissions and storing them, the process called sequestration, rather than decreasing the use of carbon-based fuels. This approach means that we can continue to use fossil fuels until they can be substituted with hydrogen-based sources of energy. Unless we develop technical alternatives to reduce CO2 emissions, our economy will suffer again and world poverty will probably increase. For example, if nuclear power had not brought a dangerous waste and security issue, it may well have replaced oil and gas, and we would all be living in the completely electric houses expected in the fifties. If we fail to devise a technology that can mitigate global warming and climate change, the consequences of the unanticipated negative impact could be catastrophic (Cohen, p.117-119).
Question4.
This bill reflects the strategic thinking of Congress to check the bloated authority of the EPA, based on political considerations, as we can see the second section of the bill which is that nothing in the Clean Air Act shall be treated as authorizing or requiring the regulation of climate change or global warming. The EPA’s current determinations of the GHG would not be made, if there are no judgment of 2007 the Supreme Court, that the EPA has the authority to regulate GHG tailpipe emissions from motor vehicles, and the Agency must also do so if it finds that these emissions cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare (
http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/environment/Supreme-Court-Tells-EPA-to-Regualte-Greenhouse-Gases.html).
We can expect that the bill comes right out of the oil/coal lobbyist's claim that Jobs will be lost. However, we can on the contrary think that it will help to create more jobs in the alternative energy field than loses job in the current industry that make rich guys richer. These potential interest groups in alternative energy industry may oppose to the pass of the bill.
Question5.
We should consider that the U.S. has the organizational and managerial capacity to devise alternative energy technology. If the capacity exists, the substitute industry will be able to offset the production shortage by lower level use of carbon fuel than current level. Plants may as ever emit carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, or sulfur hexafluoride that the H.R. 391 bill stipulates, in order to produce goods and profits unless they have the capacity. Therefore, the companies will need the pass of the bill for their profits. If the industrial associations of oil/coal companies have useful strategic plans to control and prevent the greenhouse gas emissions, it will also become positive news in protecting the environmental problem. The public sector including Congress will have to support them for the plan to be realized, which will also reduce the political conflict in environmental policy process.
