EPA Ruling Threatens Economic Recovery

Small businesses are used to complying with burdensome, costly, and complicated regulations. Like death and taxes, they are impossible to avoid! But now we may be on the verge of the mother of all regulations. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set in motion a process that could result in federal regulation of the entire economy. If this was to happen, it would destroy jobs, undermine economic growth, and threaten America's energy security. 

How did we get to this point? In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA must regulate carbon dioxide--a component of the air we breathe and vital to plant life--and other greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act (CAA) if the agency found that they endanger public health and welfare. The EPA issued such a finding last week, maintaining that carbon dioxide contributes to global warming and that this threatens the public's health.  

Now the agency--and the country--have a choice to make. The EPA could use the new powers granted to it by the Supreme Court ruling to regulate greenhouse gases under the CAA, a purpose for which this law was never intended. This would bring the economy to a screeching halt. All businesses would be subject to burdensome new permitting requirements. Stimulus projects would have a harder time getting off the ground. And large portions of the country would fail to meet the new emissions standards, threatening access to federal funds. 

The other option is for the Obama administration to defer responsibility for climate legislation to Congress, where the consequences of such an action could receive an open and honest debate.  

Where does the U.S. Chamber stand? We believe that we can guard against climate change by increasing energy efficiency, funding research into new technologies, and by acknowledging the global nature of this challenge. To achieve deep emissions reductions without breaking the bank, new technologies must be developed, demonstrated, and adopted. Moreover, if the United States acted unilaterally, there would be no guarantee that other large emitters, such as China and India, would follow. 

Climate change is a risk that must be managed, but there is a right way to do it and a wrong way. The wrong way is to create unachievable new standards that would destroy jobs and grind the economy to a halt. The right way is to use common sense, technological innovation, a realistic timeline, and international cooperation to make the transition to cleaner energy without destroying our economy. We must make the right choice!