The Daily Campus

Issue date: 4/23/08 Section: Commentary

In an ever-growing and encouraging trend, states and universities are attempting to mitigate their negative affect on the environment. This past week, at a conference at Yale, 18 states made a commitment to combat climate change. They signed a declaration vowing to decrease emissions equal to that of Europe's four biggest economies. Despite the positive news, the federal government, particularly the Bush administration, has hindered progress by preventing states from acting on their own accord.

Though the conference is an important step to decrease the United States carbon footprint, implementation of such plans are increasingly difficult because of the policies of the Bush administration and the EPA. Recently the EPA overruled a California law, rejecting request of a waiver from the Clean Air Act, that would require a 30 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2016. Stephen L. Johnson, an EPA administrator, stressed a need for a national strategy instead of allowing states the option to make contributions above and beyond federal guidelines.

The ruling by the EPA does nothing but try and stifle a movement that is gaining momentum throughout the United States, as evidenced by the fact that 17 other states would follow California's lead if the EPA approved the bill. The need for a "national strategy" is only a guise to protect big business from becoming environmentally responsible. The energy bill, signed by the President late last year, is inadequate on many levels and specifically does was not designed to counteract global warming, something that the California law would do.

Moreover, the decision by the EPA, is yet more evidence that the administration stubbornness and complete disregard for national law. In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA had the right and responsibility to combat greenhouses gases as an effective deterrent to global warming and their recent policies fly in the face of such a referendum.

For Americans to seriously battle climate change, it must be necessary for states to pick up the pieces when the federal government fails. Different regions of the country have different considerations and plans to combat climate change, and they should be allowed to pursue these avenues without interference from the government. States are in a better position to regulate their population and also better serve their needs than the federal government. The Supreme Court decision, along with the federalist nature of the American government, should lead to no other conclusion than to allow states to take control over their own environments, with the caveat that they can be more strict but not more lax than the federal standards.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools