| Free Trial |
| Submit site feedback |
Is legislation needed to protect wetlands and solidify the government's authority under the Clean Water Act?
The White House and Democratic leaders are proposing legislation that would replace the term "navigable waters" with "waters of the United States," a move that they say is needed to restore the law's original intent of protecting wetlands, streams and other waterways. Proponents argue that a 2006 Supreme Court decision too narrowly interpreted the government's authority, confusing regulators and endangering the nation's ecologically important wetlands. But Republicans and business groups charge that the Clean Water Act legislation is a power grab that would expand federal control of private property, burden farmers and businesses, and override state authorities. Who's right?
-- Margaret Kriz Hobson, NationalJournal.com
11 responses: Paul Sullivan, Rep. James L. Oberstar, D-Minn., Rep. John L. Mica, R-Fla., Margaret Kriz Hobson, Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., Hal Quinn, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., Tom Kuhn, Frances Beinecke, Donna Harman, Larry Schweiger
After decades of blocking offshore oil drilling, California lawmakers scrambling to pay off the state's $26.3 billion budget shortfall are rethinking their green standards. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) and the Democratic legislature reached a tentative agreement that would allow oil drilling off of the coast of Santa Barbara in return for an estimated $1.8 billion in royalty payments and $1.5 million for a Santa Barbara County low-carbon bus program. Is it a good tradeoff or a case of the economy trumping the environment? Should other financially strapped states follow suit?
-- Margaret Kriz Hobson, NationalJournal.com
6 responses: Rodger Schlickeisen, Frances Beinecke, Jack Gerard, Bill Kovacs, David Kreutzer, David Holt
What should American policy be toward China on climate change? Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Commerce Secretary Gary Locke traveled to China last week to discuss ways the two countries can collaborate on reducing the risks of climate change. But the Chinese continue to oppose binding limits on emissions of global warming pollution. They insist that the U.S. and other industrialized countries must take the lead. Will China and the U.S. reach some accommodation by the U.N.'s Copenhagen conference in December?
Meanwhile, China is accused of adopting protectionist policies that favor its own green energy technology companies and block U.S. and other foreign companies. How should the U.S. respond? Will the trade provisions included in the House climate bill to protect steel, aluminum and other domestic energy-intensive manufacturers leverage Chinese cooperation or only get their backs up?
-- Margaret Kriz Hobson, NationalJournal.com
Thirty years ago this week, President Carter addressed the nation about America's energy crisis, warning that the country faced "a crisis of confidence." At the time, political unrest in Iran had reduced world oil supplies, hiked oil prices and resulted in long lines at the gas pumps in many U.S. cities. In his televised speech, Carter argued that the country's "intolerable dependence on foreign oil threatens our economic independence and the very security of our nation."
Carter launched a campaign to dramatically cut oil imports, develop domestic alternative fuels, expand solar power and initiate an aggressive energy conservation program. He also called for greater development of U.S. oil resources.
Does that sound familiar? Has anything changed? Are the Obama administration and Congress on the right track to solving these energy problems, or are we destined to continue to relive them?
-- Margaret Kriz, NationalJournal.com
7 responses: Paul Sullivan, Margo Thorning, Thomas Gibson, Paul Portney, Joseph T. Kelliher, Carl Pope, Bob Dinneen
Should the federal government force Americans to use less energy?
Congress is considering legislation that would require residential and commercial buildings to be 50 percent more energy-efficient within the next five to six years. Those account for about 40 percent of U.S. energy consumption, the most of any sector. Building standards have traditionally been the purview of local governments, but a new coalition of business, electric industry, and consumer and environmental groups is pushing for national action.
Meanwhile, President Obama recently announced a federal lighting standard aimed at cutting the amount of electricity used by certain industrial light bulbs. He also dedicated $346 million in stimulus funds to boost energy efficiency in new and existing homes and commercial buildings.
Should Washington mandate tougher energy standards for appliances, equipment and buildings? Or can industry and consumers take sufficient energy efficiency actions on their own?
-- Margaret Kriz, NationalJournal.com
7 responses: David Parker, Skip Horvath, Eileen Claussen, Kateri Callahan, Mark Muro, Carl Pope, Anna Aurilio
