Download U.S. Climate Policy - IDP - Instituto Brasiliense de

Survey
yes no Was this document useful for you?
   Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Document related concepts
no text concepts found
Transcript
U.S. Climate Policy at the Federal
Level
Daniel Farber
Sho Sato Professor of Law, Berkeley
Outline
• The positions of the Bush and Obama
Administrations.
• Actions at the judicial level.
• Actions at the administrative level.
.
The U.S. Policy Under the Past
Two Presidents:
A Changing Political Landscape
The Bush Administration
• Bush had promised
during the 2001
campaign to regulate
carbon dioxide, he
repudiated this promise
quickly after the
election.
• He also rejected the
Kyoto Protocol
• Basically, he only
supported voluntary
action by companies
The Obama Administration
• Proposals for climate
change legislation.
• Has been blocked by
Republicans.
• Is now pursuing EPA
regulations.
• But Republicans may
push back.
U.S. System of Government
• Federal Power is divided between the President,
Congress, and the Courts.
Governance and Climate Policy
• States can pursue their own policies.
• The President has independent authority in
international matters.
• But domestic administration action must be
based on congressional legislation.
• Court interpret federal legislation, review
EPA’s actions, and decide common law cases
such as tort liability (delito civil).
Supreme Court and Climate Change
Background: The Clean Air Act
• Regulates air pollution.
• Applies to any substance in the area that
“endangers” human health or welfare
• Federal government sets permissible air
levels.
• Federal government also regulates new
vehicles and new plants directly.
• Has been successful in controlling air pollution
– big reductions since 1970.
Is CO2 an “Air Pollutant”?
• Bush Administration said no. Why?
• First, because Congress did not intend to
regulate climate change in this statute.
• Second, because there are better ways to
address climate change.
• So the Administration refused to limit CO2
from new cars and trucks.
First Supreme Court Issue: Standing
• A person must have “standing” to bring a
case.
• Three elements of standing:
1 Injury in fact (harm to the plaintiff)
2 The harm is “fairly traceable” to the defendant
(causation)
3 The court can remedy the problem.
The Supreme Court finds standing.
• “The harms associated with climate change are
serious and well recognized.”
• A scientific report“identifies a number of
environmental changes that have already
inflicted significant harms, including ‘the global
retreat of mountain glaciers [and] the accelerated
rate of rise of sea levels during the 20th century
relative to the past few thousand years . . . .’
Sea Level Rise
• If sea levels continue to rise as predicted, a
significant fraction of coastal property will be
‘either permanently lost through inundation
or temporarily lost through periodic storm
surge and flooding events.’”
• This harms the state’s sovereign interest in
preserving its territory.
The harm was significant
• “Considering just emissions from the
transportation sector, which represent less
than one-third of this country's total carbon
dioxide emissions, the United States would
still rank as the third-largest emitter of carbon
dioxide in the world, outpaced only by the
European Union and China.”
The Supreme Court says CO2 is a pollutant
• CO2 is covered by the
plain language of the
statute as a “substance
found in the air.”
• EPA can only consider
the science – does
climate change
endanger human health
or welfare or doesn’t it?
• Other factors are legally
irrelevant.
Mass. v. EPA set the stage for
administrative action.
• The case was returned
to EPA, so that EPA
could make a decision
about whether
greenhouse gases
endanger human health
of welfare.
• The Bush
Administration delayed
making any decision
while it was in office.
• We will consider the
Obama Administration’s
actions later.
Other judicial action.
• A lower court held that the government has to
consider the effects of an action on carbon
emissions in environmental impact
statements. (mitigation)
• Other lower courts have required that the
government consider how climate change
could effect its activities. (adaptation)
Lawsuits Based on Torts
• Several lawsuits have been filed against
industry.
• The suits claim that these activities are a
“public nuisance” – meaning that they cause
an unreasonable impact on the public.
• Some suits are brought by state governments,
some by private parties like victims of
Hurricane Katrina.
• These are common law cases.
Judicial Rulings on Public
Nuisances
• Federal district courts have rejected the cases.
They say the issues have too many
repercussions to be considered by the courts.
• But two federal appeals held that the courts
actually can hear the cases.
• The issue is currently before the Supreme
Court. The Court will probably reject the
cases.
The Obama Administration and Climate
Change
Automobiles
After the Supreme Court’s
decision:
• EPA has made a finding
about “endangerment,”
and issued regulations
under the Clean Air Act.
• In the meantime, the
government has
increased fuel efficiency
standards for cars.
Prius Hybrid
LEGAL Challenges to EPA’s
endangerment finding.
• Is CO2 a pollutant?
• Does EPA have to consider benefits of climate
change as well as harms?
• Does the law include risks outside of the
United States?
• Does EPA have to consider the economic
impact of its actions?
Judicial Review of Legal Issues
• Under the Chevron doctrine, the court will
accept EPA’s interpretation of the statute,
provided that it is reasonable and not
contradictory to the language of the statute.
• EPA’s legal determinations in the
endangerment doctrine should pass this test.
SCIENTIFIC Issues
• Is the evidence strong enough to conclude
that the climate is changing?
• Is there enough evidence that the change is
caused by human activities?
• Is it reasonable to conclude that U.S.
emissions are a significant part of the
problem?
Judicial Review of Factual Issues
• Under Overton Park, an agency’s factual
determinations are upheld unless they are
arbitrary or capricious.
• This means that there must be a reasoned
explanation based on the administrative
record, even if the court would reach a
contrary conclusion.
• The endangerment finding should easily pass
this test.
Effect of Endangerment Finding
• Will apply to factories and power plants, not
just cars.
• Federal government will set standards for new
factories and plants based on the “best
available technology.”
• States will be charged with reducing
greenhouse emissions.
• Not an ideal system.
Advantages of Using the Clean Air
Act to Regulate Greenhouse Gases
• Does not require new legislation.
• EPA has the most expertise.
• May allow the U.S. to meet its Copenhagen
commitment of 17% reduction.
• Would help states that are already trying to
act on their own.
• Republicans and some Democrats from coal
states are trying hard to block this.
A Complex Governance System
• Except in constitutional matters, the role of
the courts is secondary to Congress and the
President, but they still have a great deal of
influence.
• If there is a basis in statute, EPA has broad
authority to make rules.
• But the political developments are crucial and
hard to predict.
The situation changes almost every
week. For updates:
• www.legalplanet.wordpress.com
Thank you!
Obrigado!