Editors' Summary

Editors' Summary

The U.S. current financial conditions notwithstanding, climate change remains at the forefront of our national policy agenda. The question remains, however, whether the U.S. Congress will take decisive action on the issue before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issues regulations under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

Given past and current emission levels, the planet is already committed to significant climate change. Strong mitigation efforts can head off some of the most serious potential impacts but cannot prevent significant harm, particularly in vulnerable areas such as the arid western United States. Impacts on water supply are particularly worrisome, but a variety of other impacts are also forecast.

Over the past several years the issue of global warming has become a national political priority and will likely remain one of the United States' and the world's most pressing and unresolved policy issues for many years. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA makes possible a national program to address climate change under the Clean Air Act (CAA). Even before Massachusetts v. EPA, the congressional shift in power had produced a flurry of bills coalescing around the need for strong national goals and mandatory GHG emissions reductions.

In the article Developing a Comprehensive Approach to Climate Change Mitigation Policy in the United States: Integrating Levels of Government and Economic Sectors, Peterson, McKinstry, and Dernbach demonstrate the importance of a comprehensive approach to climate change policy in the United States. The article notes that climate change legislation proposed thus far fails to integrate state and local climate change programs with national and international efforts.

The article by Thomas D. Peterson, Robert B. McKinstry Jr., and John C. Dernbach (PM&D) has two central insights: (1) Any serious national effort to control emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) must continue to leave important roles to the states; and (2) It would be a mistake to put too many eggs in the cap-and-trade basket. A portfolio approach that utilizes many different regulatory techniques is important.

In marking the one year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, in April 2007, then-Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee John Dingell argued that developing trends--without the adoption of rationalizing comprehensive federal climate legislation--would lead to a "glorious mess." He was referring to the potential combination facing businesses of U.S.

Addressing global climate change through the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions is an issue of broad national and international concern, touching on many facets of this country's environmental and economic well-being. Crafting a workable solution will require a coordinated and comprehensive approach, for only such an approach will maximize the environmental benefits of regulation while not imposing undue costs on already strained American businesses and consumers.

I. Introduction