Will The Separation Of Powers Kill Climate Change Action? Call In the Green Deal Coalition
I promised a post on Obama's State of The Union, but in mulling over my response to the speech and several other events which have occurred in the days that followed, I realized that the issue which needs to be addressed is the degree to which the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of the government of the United States will serve to delay or derail real regulatory action on climate change (and green building), even where a strong executive seeks to pursue these goals.
The only hope is for Republican and Democratic senators concerned about climate change to form a coalition with the Obama administration. This will require pressure from a new New Deal coalition--a "Green Deal" coalition of citizens, corporations concerned about the impact of climate change on their businesses, unions seeking new clean energy and green construction jobs, minorities seeking access to the middle class and political machines seeking a big win. If these factions can align behind climate change regulation, real legislative progress is possible.
Our government is one of limited, separated powers. The Executive Branch has only three real avenues of power--administrative, diplomatic and rhetorical.
Over the past few months, the Obama administration has been using the administrative tools within the delegation of executive power to boost climate change regulation. On December 7, 2009, The EPA made an endangerment finding with respect to greenhouse gases. On January 7, 2010, the SEC issued guidelines regarding corporate disclosure of climate change risk. On October 5, 2009, Obama issued an Executive Order requiring all federal agencies to assess their environmental impact, and setting aggressive green building requirements for federal facilities, followed on January 29, 2010 with an announcement pledging to reduce the federal government's greenhouse gas pollution by 28 percent by 2020.
Obama also used his diplomatic authority to forge an international accord at Copenhagen, however limited. All 55 countries, responsible for more than two-thirds of global greenhouse gas emissions, submitted plans to curb their impacts as of 1/31/10.
Finally, using his rhetorical power, in Obama's State of The Union, he tied investments in clean energy to economic growth, and encouraged the Senate to pass a clean energy bill:
Next, we need to encourage American innovation. Last year, we made the largest investment in basic research funding in history -– (applause) -- an investment that could lead to the world's cheapest solar cells or treatment that kills cancer cells but leaves healthy ones untouched. And no area is more ripe for such innovation than energy. You can see the results of last year's investments in clean energy -– in the North Carolina company that will create 1,200 jobs nationwide helping to make advanced batteries; or in the California business that will put a thousand people to work making solar panels.
But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. (Applause.) It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. (Applause.) It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies. (Applause.) And, yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America. (Applause.)
I am grateful to the House for passing such a bill last year. (Applause.) And this year I'm eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the Senate. (Applause.)
I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy. I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But here's the thing -- even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy-efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future -– because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation. (Applause.)
In short, Obama is doing everything within his delegation of authority to enhance climate change regulation. But, at the end of the day, the President cannot make laws. He cannot force corporations or citizens or even states to undertake major changes to their actions which would be necessary to make dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. He cannot withhold federal funds from states that fail to regulate or curb their own greenhouse gas emissions. Those powers remain exclusively with Congress. Only Congress can cap greenhouse gas emissions. Only Congress can tax greenhouse gas emissions. Only Congress can enact a national enegy efficiency building code, or compel states through withholding funds to update their building codes to promote green building and energy efficient practices.
In a system of separated powers, significant social change requires cooperation among the branches of government. So, with the partisan bickering in Washington and the recent election of a Republican senator in Massachusetts, the chances of significant progress on climate change regulation have decreased. Only the Green Deal coalition can save us.
Shari focuses on energy, environmental and building code policy, representing international companies, non-profits and trade associations in their policy and communications campaigns
