White House puts warming threats on back burner

The Bush administration on July 11 rejected its own experts' conclusion that global warming poses a threat to the public welfare, launching a comment period that will delay action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at least until the next president takes office. The Environmental Protection Agency published a 588-page examination of the issues surrounding greenhouse gases but refused to adopt its staff's finding that such gases could cause disastrous flooding and drought and affect food and water supplies. The White House portrayed the EPA's original proposal to limit emissions as an "onerous command-and-control regulation" that "would impose crippling costs on the economy" without reducing the gases widely held responsible for the warming climate. Environmentalists angrily denounced the White House for what they said was political interference with government experts' proposed rules. The impetus for federal action came from a Supreme Court decision in April 2007 that rebuked the administration and ruled that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases were air pollutants subject to federal regulation under the Clean Air Act. If the EPA found they were a threat to the public, the court said, the agency was required to produce regulations to reduce the risk. By not taking a stand on the health impact of the pollutants and seeking new public comment instead, the administration extended the period before the government can act beyond Jan. 20, 2009 -- when the next president will be inaugurated. In a conference call with reporters, EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson said he would receive comments for 120 days on how the government should regulate greenhouse gases, a step that Joan Claybrook, president of the public-interest lobbying group Public Citizen, said would guarantee that "the issue will not be dealt with until a new administration comes to town." "The interference of the White House in this process is unconscionable, and its decision to run out the clock rather than take action during its tenure in office is a disgrace," she said.