A Climate Act Reappraised
Thomas Jorling’s eyes wander to the photographs on his office walls, relics of a life spent crafting legislation that once seemed destined to save the world. As a key adviser to Republican senators who cosponsored the Clean Air Act in 1970, Jorling played a crucial role in shaping the landmark law. The Act, hailed as a pioneering effort to regulate pollutants and improve air quality, has since become a cornerstone of US environmental policy. Yet, despite its successes, Jorling now fears for its future, particularly in the face of a changing climate.
A Legacy Under Siege
The Clean Air Act’s primary focus was on addressing local air pollution from industrial and automotive sources. However, as the world grappled with the mounting evidence of anthropogenic climate change, attention shifted to greenhouse gases (GHGs). The Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, which deemed GHGs a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, marked a significant turning point. This decision allowed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate GHGs, a move the Trump administration later attempted to roll back. In a 2019 memo, then-EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler argued that the Clean Air Act did not apply to climate change mitigation efforts. Jorling disputes this interpretation, citing the Act’s original intent to protect public health and the environment.
Historical Context and Legislative Intent
The Clean Air Act’s evolution reflects the complexities of environmental policy. When the law was first drafted, the primary concern was smog and particulate matter, which posed significant health risks. The Act’s authors, including Jorling, envisioned a regulatory framework that would address these local pollutants while also providing a foundation for future expansions. In the 1970s, the scientific consensus on climate change was still emerging. However, the Act’s language, which defines a “pollutant” as any substance that “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,” has been interpreted to encompass climate change. Jorling argues that this interpretation aligns with the original intent of the law.
Climate Change and the Clean Air Act: A Scientific Perspective
Climate change is, in many ways, a manifestation of the Clean Air Act’s success. The Act’s regulations on industrial emissions and vehicle standards have contributed to significant reductions in GHGs. However, the pace of emissions reductions has been insufficient to stave off the worst impacts of climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warns that, to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, GHG emissions must decline by 45% by 2030. The Clean Air Act, with its existing framework and authority, remains a crucial tool in achieving this goal. Yet, the Act’s effectiveness hinges on the EPA’s ability to effectively regulate GHGs, a task complicated by the Trump administration’s efforts to undermine the law.
International Perspectives and Historical Parallels
The US is not alone in grappling with the intersection of climate change and environmental policy. In the European Union, the 2008 Climate and Energy Package established a framework for reducing GHG emissions, with a focus on renewable energy and energy efficiency. Similarly, in Africa, countries such as Rwanda and Kenya have implemented ambitious climate change mitigation strategies, often leveraging international cooperation and funding. Jorling notes that the US can learn from these international examples, particularly in terms of developing policies that balance economic growth with environmental protection.
Reactions and Implications
The Trump administration’s attempts to roll back the Clean Air Act have sparked intense debate and opposition from environmental groups, scientists, and lawmakers. In response to the 2019 memo, a group of 22 Republican senators, including some who had cosponsored the original Clean Air Act, wrote to Wheeler expressing their opposition to the move. Jorling’s dissenting voice adds to the chorus of critics, highlighting the potential consequences of abandoning the Clean Air Act’s authority over GHGs. As the Biden administration seeks to rebuild and strengthen the EPA, the legacy of the Clean Air Act will remain a critical component of climate change policy.
Looking Ahead: What’s Next for the Clean Air Act?
As the world approaches the critical climate deadline of 2030, the Clean Air Act’s relevance and effectiveness will be put to the test. Jorling’s concerns about the law’s future are shared by many, including scientists, policymakers, and environmental advocates. The EPA’s forthcoming GHG rule, a response to the 2007 Supreme Court ruling, will be a key indicator of the agency’s commitment to upholding the Clean Air Act’s authority. As the US navigates the complexities of climate change policy, Jorling’s legacy serves as a reminder that the Clean Air Act’s potential to mitigate the worst impacts of climate change is still very much a work in progress.