cawacko
Well-known member
If you're Biden's advisor what do you tell him to do here? Many polls show inflation is the number one concern of a number of voters right now so rising energy prices probably won't help that. Environmentalists vote and you want them engaged (can't imagine these folks would vote Republican but they could stay home) and passing executive orders would likely do so. What should he do?
Senate Climate Setback Puts Pressure on Biden
With congressional legislation in jeopardy, environmentalists are favoring executive action that could lead to higher energy costs
With congressional legislation to address climate change in jeopardy, President Biden is coming under pressure to curb greenhouse-gas emissions by using his own executive powers.
The Biden administration could toughen regulations on power utilities, block new oil and gas drilling on federal land and raise auto fuel-efficiency standards, among other things, according to environmental groups and progressives in Congress.
For more-extreme actions pitched by some environmental groups—such as a halt to offshore-oil production or a ban on U.S. crude-oil exports—Mr. Biden could declare a national climate emergency under federal laws that give presidents expanded powers in times of crisis.
Some of those measures could raise gasoline prices and other energy costs for consumers, something Mr. Biden wants to avoid as his Democratic Party faces crucial midterm elections.
Other options could help consumers but lead to painful consequences elsewhere.
An oil-export ban could reduce America’s prices, but it would be a gut punch to allies around the world reliant on U.S. supply as they try to wean themselves off Russian oil and gas, said Bob McNally, who served as an energy adviser to former President George W. Bush and is now an analyst at Rapidan Energy Group.
“For the world, it would be a heart attack,” he added. “Whatever he does would lead to a collapse in investment in U.S. oil and gas,” Mr. McNally said.
Mr. Biden, who was in Saudi Arabia on Friday on a mission aimed in part at improving relations with the world’s largest crude exporter, issued a statement saying he would take “strong executive action to meet this moment.” Mr. Biden didn’t give any specifics.
Mr. Biden’s latest dilemma was triggered late Thursday, when Sen. Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.) said he couldn’t support a plan to fund climate measures with tax increases, citing the risk of setting off more inflation. Mr. Manchin said in a radio interview Friday that he wanted to see evidence inflation was receding before committing to climate and tax provisions.
Mr. Manchin’s comments are the latest setback for Mr. Biden’s climate agenda, which ran aground in the midst of record-high gasoline prices, punishing inflation and policy conflicts.
Mr. Biden’s ability to act has also been clouded by a recent Supreme Court decision that said the Environmental Protection Agency overstepped its authority in seeking to limit emissions from power plants.
The court said that when federal agencies issue regulations with sweeping economic and political consequences—in the case it was considering, rules aimed at phasing out coal consumption to address climate change—the regulations are presumptively invalid unless Congress has specifically authorized the action.
That ruling might empower more challenges to executive orders that could delay implementation for years.
Mr. Biden, according to environmentalists, could overcome those limitations by using several levers under his emergency-power authority.
The conservative Supreme Court majority gave approval to broad use of executive emergency powers in 2020, allowing then-President Donald Trump to keep building a security wall with $2.5 billion reallocated under powers related to the declaration of a national emergency on the southern border.
Jeff Holmstead, who served as an EPA official under former President George W. Bush and is now a lawyer at the Bracewell LLP law firm, said it is hard to tell without specific proposals whether the courts would block Mr. Biden’s use of emergency power. There are few court cases on that power, though courts typically give presidents broad latitude in times of emergency, he said.
“Knowing where the line is drawn, I think it is hard to know,” he said.
Rising seas, melting ice caps and other effects are unequivocally driven by greenhouse-gas emissions from human activity, according to scientists convened by the United Nations. They have said emissions must be halved by 2030 from 2010 levels to help avoid more-catastrophic changes in weather and the environment.
In a report earlier this year, the Center for Biological Diversity, a nonprofit environmental group, said the president could respond by invoking emergency-authority powers that draw from the National Emergencies Act and the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.
“The fact that we have more extreme heat waves and more extreme hurricanes, it is very palpable for people that we are in a national climate emergency situation,” said Jean Su, who leads the energy-justice program at the Center for Biological Diversity.
Under the Stafford Act, which is designed for emergencies that threaten national security, Mr. Biden could order the Federal Emergency Management Agency to build renewable-energy systems and limit construction of fossil-fuel infrastructure, the report said.
The 1976 National Emergencies Act, a more commonly used emergency power, gives Mr. Biden the power to ban crude-oil exports, a move that the report’s authors said would cut up to 165 million metric tons of greenhouse- gas emissions, the equivalent of closing 42 coal-fired plants.
The same law would enable him to suspend offshore leases, halting oil and gas production, the report said.
On Friday, another group, Evergreen Action, a frequent conduit between Mr. Biden and progressives, joined calls for urgent action from the president.
“Broad emergency powers here may be appropriate given the emergency that is the climate crisis and given the utter intransigence in Congress,” said Sam Ricketts, a co-founder of the group.
Mr. Biden started to take such drastic action in recent weeks when he declared a national emergency to avert a slowdown in solar-power development.
In June, he invoked emergency powers to waive tariffs on solar imports and to use the Defense Production Act to boost U.S. manufacturing of solar-panel components, electric heat pumps and other clean-energy technology.
In invoking the Defense Production Act, Mr. Biden instructed the Energy Department to find ways to expand those industries, with possible options that include federal purchase commitments, subsidizing U.S.-made materials or buying equipment to expand production.
A person familiar with the White House’s thinking wouldn’t rule out the possibility that the administration explores a more expansive use of such emergency powers. The person added that more-traditional regulatory moves through the EPA and other agencies are getting more attention.
In his first 18 months, Mr. Biden had focused on Congress as the best way to achieve his agenda. It was the only way to get major funding to speed up an economywide transition from fossil fuels to clean energy, and to avoid relying on regulation from the EPA and other agencies that have sometimes failed to stand up in court.
Mr. Manchin, however, had never signed on. And with Senate Republicans in lockstep opposition to spending on climate programs, Mr. Manchin’s vote has been decisive in a 50-50 divided Congress.
“It was already hard,“ John Larsen, who leads U.S. energy-system and climate-policy research at Rhodium Group, an independent research firm, said of government efforts to address climate change. ”And now it is harder.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/senate...n-to-take-charge-11657976402?mod=hp_lead_pos1
Senate Climate Setback Puts Pressure on Biden
With congressional legislation in jeopardy, environmentalists are favoring executive action that could lead to higher energy costs
With congressional legislation to address climate change in jeopardy, President Biden is coming under pressure to curb greenhouse-gas emissions by using his own executive powers.
The Biden administration could toughen regulations on power utilities, block new oil and gas drilling on federal land and raise auto fuel-efficiency standards, among other things, according to environmental groups and progressives in Congress.
For more-extreme actions pitched by some environmental groups—such as a halt to offshore-oil production or a ban on U.S. crude-oil exports—Mr. Biden could declare a national climate emergency under federal laws that give presidents expanded powers in times of crisis.
Some of those measures could raise gasoline prices and other energy costs for consumers, something Mr. Biden wants to avoid as his Democratic Party faces crucial midterm elections.
Other options could help consumers but lead to painful consequences elsewhere.
An oil-export ban could reduce America’s prices, but it would be a gut punch to allies around the world reliant on U.S. supply as they try to wean themselves off Russian oil and gas, said Bob McNally, who served as an energy adviser to former President George W. Bush and is now an analyst at Rapidan Energy Group.
“For the world, it would be a heart attack,” he added. “Whatever he does would lead to a collapse in investment in U.S. oil and gas,” Mr. McNally said.
Mr. Biden, who was in Saudi Arabia on Friday on a mission aimed in part at improving relations with the world’s largest crude exporter, issued a statement saying he would take “strong executive action to meet this moment.” Mr. Biden didn’t give any specifics.
Mr. Biden’s latest dilemma was triggered late Thursday, when Sen. Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.) said he couldn’t support a plan to fund climate measures with tax increases, citing the risk of setting off more inflation. Mr. Manchin said in a radio interview Friday that he wanted to see evidence inflation was receding before committing to climate and tax provisions.
Mr. Manchin’s comments are the latest setback for Mr. Biden’s climate agenda, which ran aground in the midst of record-high gasoline prices, punishing inflation and policy conflicts.
Mr. Biden’s ability to act has also been clouded by a recent Supreme Court decision that said the Environmental Protection Agency overstepped its authority in seeking to limit emissions from power plants.
The court said that when federal agencies issue regulations with sweeping economic and political consequences—in the case it was considering, rules aimed at phasing out coal consumption to address climate change—the regulations are presumptively invalid unless Congress has specifically authorized the action.
That ruling might empower more challenges to executive orders that could delay implementation for years.
Mr. Biden, according to environmentalists, could overcome those limitations by using several levers under his emergency-power authority.
The conservative Supreme Court majority gave approval to broad use of executive emergency powers in 2020, allowing then-President Donald Trump to keep building a security wall with $2.5 billion reallocated under powers related to the declaration of a national emergency on the southern border.
Jeff Holmstead, who served as an EPA official under former President George W. Bush and is now a lawyer at the Bracewell LLP law firm, said it is hard to tell without specific proposals whether the courts would block Mr. Biden’s use of emergency power. There are few court cases on that power, though courts typically give presidents broad latitude in times of emergency, he said.
“Knowing where the line is drawn, I think it is hard to know,” he said.
Rising seas, melting ice caps and other effects are unequivocally driven by greenhouse-gas emissions from human activity, according to scientists convened by the United Nations. They have said emissions must be halved by 2030 from 2010 levels to help avoid more-catastrophic changes in weather and the environment.
In a report earlier this year, the Center for Biological Diversity, a nonprofit environmental group, said the president could respond by invoking emergency-authority powers that draw from the National Emergencies Act and the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.
“The fact that we have more extreme heat waves and more extreme hurricanes, it is very palpable for people that we are in a national climate emergency situation,” said Jean Su, who leads the energy-justice program at the Center for Biological Diversity.
Under the Stafford Act, which is designed for emergencies that threaten national security, Mr. Biden could order the Federal Emergency Management Agency to build renewable-energy systems and limit construction of fossil-fuel infrastructure, the report said.
The 1976 National Emergencies Act, a more commonly used emergency power, gives Mr. Biden the power to ban crude-oil exports, a move that the report’s authors said would cut up to 165 million metric tons of greenhouse- gas emissions, the equivalent of closing 42 coal-fired plants.
The same law would enable him to suspend offshore leases, halting oil and gas production, the report said.
On Friday, another group, Evergreen Action, a frequent conduit between Mr. Biden and progressives, joined calls for urgent action from the president.
“Broad emergency powers here may be appropriate given the emergency that is the climate crisis and given the utter intransigence in Congress,” said Sam Ricketts, a co-founder of the group.
Mr. Biden started to take such drastic action in recent weeks when he declared a national emergency to avert a slowdown in solar-power development.
In June, he invoked emergency powers to waive tariffs on solar imports and to use the Defense Production Act to boost U.S. manufacturing of solar-panel components, electric heat pumps and other clean-energy technology.
In invoking the Defense Production Act, Mr. Biden instructed the Energy Department to find ways to expand those industries, with possible options that include federal purchase commitments, subsidizing U.S.-made materials or buying equipment to expand production.
A person familiar with the White House’s thinking wouldn’t rule out the possibility that the administration explores a more expansive use of such emergency powers. The person added that more-traditional regulatory moves through the EPA and other agencies are getting more attention.
In his first 18 months, Mr. Biden had focused on Congress as the best way to achieve his agenda. It was the only way to get major funding to speed up an economywide transition from fossil fuels to clean energy, and to avoid relying on regulation from the EPA and other agencies that have sometimes failed to stand up in court.
Mr. Manchin, however, had never signed on. And with Senate Republicans in lockstep opposition to spending on climate programs, Mr. Manchin’s vote has been decisive in a 50-50 divided Congress.
“It was already hard,“ John Larsen, who leads U.S. energy-system and climate-policy research at Rhodium Group, an independent research firm, said of government efforts to address climate change. ”And now it is harder.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/senate...n-to-take-charge-11657976402?mod=hp_lead_pos1
