There are plenty of reasons to oppose the cap-and-trade legislation working its way through Congress, but the claim that a “nasty bureaucratic provision” will require “President Obama to act like Venezuelan strong man Hugo Chavez” is not one of them.
The provision at issue — Section 707 in the bill approved by the Senate Environment Committee — reads as follows:
SEC. 707. PRESIDENTIAL RESPONSE AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Not later than July 1, 2015, and every 4 years thereafter—
(1) the President shall direct relevant Federal agencies to use existing statutory authority to take appropriate actions identified in the reports submitted under sections 705 and 706 and to address any shortfalls identified in such reports; and
(2) in the event that the National Academy of Sciences has concluded, in the most recent report submitted under section 706, that the United States will not achieve the necessary domestic greenhouse gas emission reductions, or that global actions will not maintain safe global average surface temperature and atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration thresholds, the President shall submit to Congress a plan identifying domestic and international actions that will achieve necessary additional greenhouse gas reductions, including any recommendations for legislative action.
This provision would clearly require the federal government to step up its efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and could well be triggered rather quickly if the bill is passed. It’s also possible, as Senator David Vitter warns, that it could limit the award of carbon reduction offsets and permits under this and other regulatory programs. (See also here.) But “strong man powers”? Please.
The above provision grants no new powers to the federal government, let alone the President. None. Zero. Zilch. Rather, it directs the President to have agencies use “existing statutory authority” to ensure greater greenhouse gas emission reductions. In other words, it requires the President to ensure that agencies are using all the tools Congress has already delegated to them to reduce greenhouse gas emissions — tools that such agencies could use even if the section is not triggered — and demands the President “submit to Congress” a request for additional authorities the President believes are necessary to ensure greater emission reductions. Moreover, insofar as this provision constrains the Executive Branch’s discretion over what emission-reduction measures it wants to take, it actually reduces executive authority.
That said, Section 707 could be worrisome to interest groups bullish about their ability to influence EPA implementation of a cap-and-trade regime, particularly those anticipating they will be able to take advantage of a flexible administrative approach to emission reduction offsets. The farm lobby, for instance, pushed hard to shift responsibility for monitoring agricultural offsets from the EPA to the Agriculture Department, as they expect the Ag Department to be more favorable to their interests when evaluating offsets. The EPA has been too ambivalent about the environmental benefits of ethanol and other biofuels for the farm lobby’s tastes. Once triggered, Section 707 might tie Ag’s hands, insofar as it would require the Department to adopt a more restrictive approach to evaluating offsets. This could leave the farm lobby quite disappointed. So, while Section 707 may provide reasons for offset-seeking interests and other rent-seekers to take a second-look at bill, it’s hardly a stalking horse for climate Chavistas.
Steve says:
Did David Vitter actually hold a press conference about this provision yesterday? How funny. “Existing statutory authority,” ooh, those are scary words!
November 11, 2009, 9:47 amBrian Garst says:
I agree with your interpretation. However, Barack Obama needs no legal requirement to act like Hugo Chavez. He does so on his own accord.
November 11, 2009, 9:54 amMargaretMN says:
Maybe Vitter is worried that there is enough “existing statutory authority” for Obama to “act like a Chavista strongman” if he so chooses. One of the things that allowed Chavez to gain as much power as he did and continues to wield is something that had been part of Venezuelan law for decades called “enabling laws.” These are laws, passed by the Venezuelan Congress that basically give the President a blank check, like an emergency powers act. They were used pretty frequently prior to Chavez to allow the president to solve some crisis (usually fiscal) or other. Why would they do this? because Venezuela had a strong President and a weak Congress, like a lot of other Latin American countries and the President’s political party was also pretty complicit in doing whatever the President wanted.
This isn’t an enabling law by a long stretch, but the purposefully vague language urging the President to act unilaterally is a troubling aspect as far as the relative power of the two branches goes. I don’t know if it’s worthy of a press conference but I am glad somebody noticed.
November 11, 2009, 10:04 amA.S. says:
“In other words, it requires the President to ensure that agencies are using all the tools Congress has already delegated to them to reduce greenhouse gas emissions — tools that such agencies could use even if the section is not triggered”
If the agencies already have existing authority, then this provision is unnecessary. The provision is only meaningful if it is intended to accomplish something beyond what is already provided under current law.
“demands the President “submit to Congress” a request for additional authorities the President believes are necessary to ensure greater emission reductions”
That doesn’t sound Constitutional to me. The Constitution (Art II, Sec 3) provides that the President shall “recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient”. Accordingly, submissions to Congress are within the President’s discretion and may not be required by this type of law.
November 11, 2009, 10:05 ambyomtov says:
You mean David Vitter is lying? Say it ain’t so.
November 11, 2009, 10:35 amA.S. says:
“You mean David Vitter is lying? Say it ain’t so.”
It ain’t so. Since it was the Examiner, not Vitter, that claimed that the provision would lead to “strong man powers”.
November 11, 2009, 10:45 amSoronel Haetir says:
More interesting is the international aspect. What happens when it’s determined that no one else is doing a damn thing? Set off a few nukes to provide extra insulation?
November 11, 2009, 10:47 amMark T. Tillar says:
Mistaken Policy ignores science, as carbon has remained the same since 1852.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091110141842.htm
So we all lose our freedoms as envisioned by the founders for pop culture.
November 11, 2009, 11:08 ambyomtov says:
It ain’t so. Since it was the Examiner, not Vitter, that claimed that the provision would lead to “strong man powers”.
And Vitter is supporting the story and spreading it.
He’s just as big a liar as the Examiner.
November 11, 2009, 11:21 amrj says:
First, there was the economist at the EPA who cobbled together a bunch of citations to websites into a report nobody asked for and then whined to the press when they didn’t release it under the aegis of the agency.
Then, there was Sen. Inhofe’s phony list of AGW-skeptical scientists, many of whom didn’t want to be on the list and even more of whom weren’t even in relevant fields.
Now there’s Vitter playing the Chavez card.
If the denialist case is so strong, why this constant stream of two-bit hackery?
(and no, “the other guys do it too!” is not a valid argument. Just because your opponent is wrong doesn’t make you right.)
November 11, 2009, 11:21 amNickM says:
Everything has two-bit hackery.
Seriously, were you expecting entirely truthful debate with politicians and massive rent-seeking opportunities involved?
Nick
November 11, 2009, 1:34 pmgeokstr says:
This is an argument I have seen the left make over and over again here and on lots of other sites. It goes something like this:
Barf.
November 11, 2009, 2:19 pmrj says:
geokstr: In that case, you lose the right to complain about all that stuff.
Also, that oppressed martyr outfit you’ve donned doesn’t fit you well.
And BTW, as someone who has been involved with Democratic politics for a while, I can assure you that Alinsky or his book NEVER came up until righties made a big deal of it back around election time. And I’ve worked with Bernadine Dohrn!
November 11, 2009, 2:23 pmLN says:
That reminds me, I came across this:
There are certain words that simply reveal that the reality ship sailed a long, long time ago.
November 11, 2009, 2:38 pmSteve says:
Yeah, the wingers are really funny the way they wave around Alinsky’s rules. Like, did you know ridicule never existed as a political tactic before Alinsky invented it? Anyone who mocks their political opponents must be an Alinsky disciple, which is why the Right never ever does it.
November 11, 2009, 3:04 pmRichard Aubrey says:
Yeah, Steve.
November 11, 2009, 3:25 pmWell, whether you were following A’s rules or not, there aren’t many tactics about which you can complain.
David Schwartz says:
A.S.: A command to use existing statutory authority doesn’t grant any authority not already had. But if that command is effective, it would result in that authority being used where it wasn’t previously. That said, I don’t see how Congress can command the President to exercise any authority he has.
November 11, 2009, 3:29 pmDavid Schwartz says:
You are misunderstanding what this study is saying. It is not saying that carbon levels have remained the same. It is only saying that the fraction of human-produced carbon that stays in the atmosphere has remained the same.
“Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero.”
So let’s look at what this is saying. Saying “the trend is essentially zero” means that there has been no significant change in something. What is that something? It is “the airborne fraction”. That is, it is what fraction of the CO2 remains airborne.
So, if the fraction stays the same, that means X tons of CO2 emitted in 1850 resulted in Y tons of CO2 in the atmosphere then and it will still result in more or less Y tons of CO2 in the atmosphere if emitted now. Thus the many times more tons of CO2 we are emitting now results in that same huge number more tons of CO2 in the atmosphere.
November 11, 2009, 3:35 pmcubanbob says:
What happens when science finally debunks the AGW hysteria? Do the agencies loose all their tools with respects to this enviro-idiocy?
November 11, 2009, 4:02 pmReality101 says:
Mr Adler apparently doesn’t understand the context: the 450 ppm CO2 EQUIVALENT trigger is a global Ambient Air Quality Standard. Unprecedented in terms of scope and impact. The entire US would be in perpetual “noncompliance”.
The mandate to use existing authority overrules any rational decision by a Department head…like refusing to use the ESA to block oil and gas leasing because of a polar bear “crisis”.
If Barack is in the WH in 2015, think of the havoc he can create because his “hands are tied”. If we take back the WH, NRDC will be the first to sue to compel compliance…challenging ANY and ALL permits, NEPA/EIS findings, etc. There will no discussion about standing.
November 11, 2009, 4:13 pmAnthony says:
Um… yes, since those regulatory tools require an endangerment finding? Not that your first sentence is plausible.
November 11, 2009, 4:29 pmyankee says:
And it does. Under current law, the President has the discretion to “use existing statutory authority to take appropriate actions,” etc., but under the proposed Section 707 he is required to do so. This wouldn’t make much practical difference to the Obama administration, but it would constrain the next President.
November 11, 2009, 4:59 pmA.S. says:
Is this correct? I don’t think so. For example, the President doesn’t have discretion to address global warming under the CAA – at least according to the Supreme Court in Massachusetts vs EPA. Can you point me to some specific provision of law under which the President has discretion under current law but which could be made mandatory under Section 707?
November 11, 2009, 6:07 pmChrisTS says:
Or, a disciple of Gorgias’.
November 11, 2009, 6:35 pmJohn Moore says:
But it does show something very important: a very significant factor in the climate forecasts is wrong, and nobody knows why. From the article:
So we are making very huge policy decisions based on science which can’t get a particular, important factor even close to right? 18-75 percent? Not only that, this is just a guess as to the problem with carbon sink estimates.
But don’t worry, the other science is just as bad – especially the paleoclimatology used to create the “hockey stick” and to magically vanish the midieval optimum (warm period), and the magical climate models that do not produce falsifiable results (i.e. are not testable in a scientific manner).
As for the provisions… ho hum… I’ll check tonight and see if Glenn Beck has integrated it into his paranoia yet.
November 11, 2009, 6:58 pmguy in the veal calf office says:
rj says: And BTW, as someone who has been involved with Democratic politics for a while, I can assure you that Alinsky or his book NEVER came up until righties made a big deal of it back around election time.
How involved are you in Democratic grass roots if you’ve never heard of Alinsky until a Republican introduced him? The guy basically invented modern community organizing (relentless boycott, picketing, hectoring, etc of individual targets) and made it an effective political force. As a 60s activist, Hillary Clinton’s interviewed Alinksy personally and her 80 page college thesis is called “There is Only the Fight … An Analysis of the Alinsky Model.” His teaching were all over the community organizers Obama taught and allied with.
I am not saying they are Alinksy cultists (or that its even wrong to use the man’s effective methods), and I don’t think the means they consciously deploy in their political machinations are out of bounds, but like any phase of life, the lessons Obama, Hilary and their peers found useful during their dalliance with Alinsky and his followers probably stayed with them.
Alinsky’s son thought so: “The Democratic National Convention had all the elements of the perfectly organized event, Saul Alinsky style. Barack Obama’s training in Chicago by the great community organizers is showing its effectiveness. …I am proud to see that my father’s model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday.”
November 11, 2009, 7:02 pmOpher Banarie says:
So we can expect to bomb China to rubble?
November 11, 2009, 7:26 pmJoseph Slater says:
Just like the left couldn’t quite decide whether Bush was the embodiment of ruthlessly efficient evil or a comically inept clown, the right can’t decide whether Obama is the embodiment of ruthlessly efficient Alinskyite tactics or clueless and inexperienced.
And no, this isn’t an invitation for folks on either side to explain how the seemingly-inconsistent caricatures of their opponents are somehow both true.
November 12, 2009, 8:28 amDotar Sojat says:
Its not about climate. Its about power and control.
November 12, 2009, 10:02 amtfkw says:
“Chavista”! While checking whether that word was invented just now, I also found the term “Chavismo”, for his ideology.
November 12, 2009, 3:44 pmakorozco says:
Speaking of Chavez, how will this war be on the environment? http://www.newsy.com/videos/fighting_words_in_south_america
November 13, 2009, 10:11 amBig Government » Blog Archive » Obama’s Big Climate Change Tool: Yes, It Is a Big Deal says:
[...] CEI colleague Jonathan Adler adopts Ed Morrissey’s position posted on Hot Air, phrasing it on Volokh: “The above provision grants no new powers to the federal government, let alone the [...]
November 13, 2009, 3:22 pmObama’s Big Climate Change Tool: Yes, It Is a Big Deal - Conservative Viewpoint Blog says:
[...] CEI colleague Jonathan Adler adopts Ed Morrissey’s position posted on Hot Air, phrasing it on Volokh: “The above provision grants no new powers to the federal government, let alone the [...]
November 13, 2009, 9:55 pm