Should the Environmental Protection Agency be required to publicly defend its finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare?
In April, the EPA released a proposal concluding that carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants cause health problems. Now the agency is poised to release the final version of that ruling. But the U.S. Chamber of Commerce argues that before the decision is finalized, EPA should be required to defend its scientific conclusions in front of an administrative law judge. Chamber officials and other critics claim that the Obama administration is suppressing internal agency studies that disagree with the proposed endangerment finding.
Should the climate change data be reviewed in a public administrative law hearing? Would a public hearing make any difference? Or is the hearing request just an excuse to delay the agency's climate change decision?
-- Margaret Kriz Hobson, NationalJournal.com
9 responses: Kevin Knobloch, Richard Revesz, Larry Schweiger, Paul Sullivan, Jon A. Anda, William O'Keefe, Carl Pope, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., Bill Kovacs
With climate change dominating the environment and energy discussions in Washington this year, are other critical environment and energy issues being put on the back burner?
Are Congress and federal regulators doing enough to address troublesome questions related to water pollution, toxic substances, endangered species, forest management, mountaintop mining, energy development on federal lands and a host of other hot-button issues? What problems should they tackle once the climate issue is completed?
-- Margaret Kriz Hobson, NationalJournal.com
6 responses: David Holt, Bob Bendick, Linda Stuntz, Paul Sullivan, Andrew Wheeler, William O'Keefe
As members of Congress meet with their constituents this summer, what are they likely to hear on climate change? What messages are most worrisome to you? Which climate-change ads already airing in key districts are likely to have the greatest impact? Do any of the ads cross the line? Do you expect lawmakers to come back more -- or less -- willing to tackle global warming?
Climate Change Vs. Health Care (updated at 9:50 a.m. on Aug. 18)
With health care issues dominating the national debate, is climate change getting lost in the shuffle? Will that kill chances of passing climate legislation this fall? After members of Congress have been attacked in town hall meetings on health care, will they avoid taking bold positions on other controversial issues, particularly climate change?
And what impact, if any, will the American Petroleum Institute's "energy citizen" rallies and advertising blitzes by other business groups and by the environmental community have on the discussion?
-- Beth Sussman and Margaret Kriz Hobson, NationalJournal.com
8 responses: Tom Kuhn, Paul Sullivan, William O'Keefe, Jon A. Anda, Kateri Callahan, Denise Bode, Margaret Kriz Hobson, William O'Keefe
What's on your summer reading list that you wish everyone who reads this blog would take along to the beach -- or Paris or their neighborhood pool? (Feel free to mention anything from detailed policy books to novels, but please tell us why they're high on your list.) Are there related books that you regularly recommend? Is there a misguided book that you'd like to snatch away from anyone helping to craft federal policies on energy and the environment?
-- Margaret Kriz Hobson and Beth Sussman, NationalJournal.com
6 responses: David Holt, Rodger Schlickeisen, Jon A. Anda, Randall Swisher, Thomas J. Pyle, William O'Keefe
Should federal climate change legislation include a price cap to limit the cost industry will pay to buy emission credits?
Legislation passed by the House and being debated in the Senate would require much of the U.S. industrial base to buy emission credits for each ton of carbon dioxide emitted. In the early years, most of the credits would be given to the companies for free to cushion the impact on consumers and give industry time to cut pollution. But many companies say they need a clear idea of the future costs of buying credits. They want the Senate to adopt an adjustable price cap or a "collar" that would set a ceiling and floor price on credits.
Does it make sense to limit emission credit costs? Or does it defeat the effectiveness of the climate change cap-and-trade program?
-- Margaret Kriz Hobson, NationalJournal.com
14 responses: Jim Kerr, Larry Schweiger, Dirk Forrister, Chuck Gray, Paul Sullivan, Jon A. Anda, Donna Harman, Eileen Claussen, Frances Beinecke, Paul Sullivan, William O'Keefe, Steven Stoft, Jon A. Anda, Tom Kuhn
