|
 The White House is seeking to enshrine its pledge in a global
climate agreement to be negotiated Nov. 30 to Dec. 11 in Paris. It
calls for cutting greenhouse gas emissions by close to 28 percent
from 2005 levels within a decade, using a host of existing laws and
executive actions targeting power plants, vehicles, oil and gas
production and buildings.
But Republican critics say the administration lacks the political
and legal backing to commit the United States to an international
agreement.
"Considering that two-thirds of the U.S. federal government hasn't
even signed off on the Clean Power Plan and 13 states have already
pledged to fight it, our international partners should proceed with
caution before entering into a binding, unattainable deal,” Senate
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said.
U.S. officials stressed that their Intended Nationally Determined
Contribution, U.N. lingo for its official submission, stands on
sound legal footing, with the measures drawing authority from
legislation such as the Clean Air Act and the Energy Independence
and Security Act.
 Todd Stern, the lead U.S. climate change negotiator, said he
frequently tells foreign counterparts that "undoing the kind of
regulation we are putting in place is very tough to do."
But elements of the administration's climate policy already face
legal challenges. On April 16, a federal appeals court in
Washington, D.C. will hear arguments from 13 states opposed to
as-yet-unfinalized regulations from the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) that target emissions in existing power plants.
And McConnell's warnings echoed the tone of a March 9 "open letter"
from 47 Republican senators to Iran, in which they warned a
Republican president would not be bound to honor a nuclear agreement
struck by Democrat Obama without congressional approval, calling it
a "mere executive agreement."
Some observers said that resistance to the administration's climate
policies leaves foreign governments questioning whether Obama's
commitments can last.
“By strenuously invoking EPA regulations, the Administration is
trying to convince skeptical international audiences that the U.S.
can actually deliver on its new climate goals, despite Republican
resistance,” said Paul Bledsoe, a former Clinton White House
official who is now with the German Marshall Fund of the United
States.
“But major capitals are likely to remain nervous.”
[to top of second column] |
The administration is clearly sensitive to the threat. Power plants
are the biggest domestic source of greenhouse gas emissions, and the
EPA is seeking to use its power to slash carbon levels from plants
to 30 percent of their 2005 levels by 2020.
On Monday, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said the agency had
designed power plant rules under the authority of the Clean Air Act
- and insisted that they can withstand Supreme Court scrutiny.
"We don’t need a plan B if we are solid on our plan A," she said.
But Jeff Holmstead, a lawyer representing utilities industries for
Bracewell & Giuliani and former assistant administrator of the EPA
under George W Bush, says even if the courts uphold the EPA proposal
on power plants, a future Republican administration can reverse it.
"There are some EPA rules that are very difficult for a new
administration to change but this is not one of those rules,"
Holmstead said. He calculates that at least five high court justices
are wary of the EPA's regulatory leeway.
Environmental groups, on the other hand, were more confident that
Obama's measures cannot be reversed by the courts or politics.
“The Clean Air Act has proven to be quite durable," said David
Waskow, director of international initiatives for the World
Resources Institute. "While elements may be slowed or modified by
legal challenges, they are rarely overturned.”
(Reporting By Valerie Volcovici; Editing by Bruce Wallace and Grant
McCool)
[© 2015 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.]
Copyright 2015 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
 |
