U.S. legislation on climate

US climate-related legislation has attempted to reverse or reduce some of the damage done to the environment, to minimize resource depletion, and to prevent or mitigate GHG emissions and other climate-related pollution.

Background

Climate change is the result of a complex of changes in atmospheric and oceanic composition and dynamics, and it has been suspected that Earth’s climate is warming. Many scientists believe that available data indicate that human activity—particularly increased emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs)—is contributing to this warming. Global warming, in turn, is expected to affect supplies of food and water, air quality, energy resources, biodiversity, and human and nonhuman migration patterns. Over the past several decades, therefore, legislation has been proposed and passed in the United States in an attempt to ameliorate the effects of global warming.

Air Pollution Control Act

The first federal legislation regarding air pollution was the 1955 Air Pollution Control Act. This law established funding requirements for federal research on air pollution but did nothing to control that pollution. It was not until the Clean Air Act of 1963 that an attempt was made to place controls on emissions of air pollutants, mostly through monitoring manufacturing techniques. On the international scene, the following year saw the establishment of a new international organization. Originally called the Group of 77 and China (because it consisted of seventy-seven developing countries and China), this group met periodically to discuss and negotiate policy related to climate-change issues.

Clean Air Act and Its Amendments

The Clean Air Act of 1963 was amended in 1970. The Clean Air Act Amendments led to the development of regulatory programs including the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), state implementation plans, new source performance standards, and national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants. At the same time that this legislation was adopted, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was being developed through the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970. The EPA was officially launched in 1971. Between the Clean Air Act and its 1970 amendments, Congress enacted the Air Quality Act (1967), which enhanced procedures to monitor interstate air pollution transport and expanded studies of air pollution emissions and control techniques.

A series of additional amendments was passed as the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, which were concerned with maintenance issues regarding NAAQS. In 1990, the authority and responsibilities of the government to regulate air quality were increased through the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. New programs were created to control acid rain and emissions that compromised atmospheric ozone. The 1990 revisions increased research programs and the federal government’s authority to enforce standards. The 1990 amendments also established permit program requirements.

Foreign Operations Appropriations Act

The Foreign Operations Appropriations Act was signed into law in 2002, providing funding to support US foreign policy objectives. It required the president to submit a report of expenditures on climate change activities and constituted a major amendment to the Clean Air Act of 1990. Also formulated in 1990 was the United States’ first National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP). It was established both to manage existing environmental issues and to devise ways to anticipate and meet future challenges.

US Stance on International Agreements

The first significant international agreement related to climate change was the Montreal Protocol, which entered into force in 1989. Its goal was to eliminate the use of substances that deplete the ozone layer. In 1997, the Kyoto Protocol was adopted as an amendment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The UNFCCC recognized that climate resources are shared among nations and that the stability of Earth is dependent upon all countries’ compliance with efforts to reduce emissions of GHGs. The UNFCCC outlined intergovernmental efforts necessary to provide financial and technological cooperation in adapting to the impacts of global warming.

The Kyoto Protocol required industrialized nations to limit GHG emissions and set 2008-2012 targets for each country relative to that country’s 1990 emissions. The GHGs targeted for reduction were carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and Perfluorocarbons (PFCs). The protocol also created mechanisms that would allow the industrialized nations to fulfil their reduction targets in part by funding environmentally friendly projects in developing nations, in lieu of making actual reductions at home. Nations that reduced their emissions to below their target level could also sell excess to nations whose emissions exceeded their targets. US president George W. Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol in 2001, because he opposed mandatory emission-reduction requirements. However, in April of 2008 he articulated a goal to decrease GHG emissions by 2025.

Twenty-first Century

The focus of legislation at the beginning of the twenty-first century—particularly in the wake of the terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001—was on ensuring national security, but legislation was also passed to fund commissions to study climate change. In the first decade of the new millennium, executive or legislative commissions examined the consequences of climate change. Efforts were made to implement mandatory reporting of GHG emissions and economy-wide GHG reductions and standards.

In Alaska, for example, a Climate Impact Assessment Commission addressed ways to reduce the impacts of climate change. Other states taking similar initiatives included Montana, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, California, and New Mexico. In 2005, the North Carolina Legislative Commission on was created to study the issues related to global warming, and a similar commission was formed in Arkansas, called the Arkansas Governor’s Commission on Global Warming. The Arizona Climate Action Initiative and an executive order in Kansas established advisory groups to recommend ways to reduce GHG emissions.

State climate action plans have been developed to reduce GHGs. The first was the Maine Climate Action Plan (2003), followed by the Connecticut Climate Action Plan (2004). In 2007, the Colorado Climate Action Plan and the Florida Energy and Climate Action Plan were established. Each plan identified cost-effective ways to reduce GHG emissions based on the characteristics of its particular state, including the state’s political structure, economy, and resource base.

In addition, registries that aim to measure and report emissions have been established. In Wisconsin, the Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Registry (1999) required the Department of Natural Resources to establish and operate systems to register decreases in GHGs, and the Wisconsin Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting legislation required the reporting of emissions and air containment. In 2000, the California Climate Action Registry was established. It created specific penalties for violations of emissions requirements. In 2007, the West Virginia Inventory and Reporting program was established to inventory emissions and reductions in GHGs, and the Climate Registry established a general reporting protocol.

Economy-wide GHG reductions have also been targeted. In Hawaii, the goal has been to reduce GHG emissions by 2020. A Minnesota bill (2007) involved efforts, and a California bill (2006) required a state board to adopt regulations to report and enforce the rules, establishing economy-wide GHG reductions, with targets for the entire state.

Just as important as the need to establish commissions, boards, action plans, and registries is the need for standards to ensure that all electricity used in a state is produced within regulations. In 2006, California prohibited electric utility companies from establishing any agreements that did not comply with GHG requirements. That same year, a bill was passed to prohibit the recovery of certain costs of electricity services in Minnesota. In 2007, Washington State passed legislation to increase green jobs and reduce GHG emissions.

Standards for vehicles have also been established in California. A 2002 act related to air quality was passed, reducing GHG emissions in machines. Other states have adopted or begun the process of adopting these standards, including Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The states projected to adopt California’s standards were planning to apply them to 2009 and later models of cars and light trucks to control emissions from tailpipes. A report released in 2004 (two years after California’s law was passed) provided light vehicle regulations to consider for adoption. These standards were adopted in September of 2004.

The auto industry opposed these regulations, arguing that GHG emissions and fuel economy standards should be set only by the US Department of Transportation. Interestingly, analysis of the impact of these regulations indicated only a small national effect on energy demand and fuel prices. Results depend on the number of states that adopt the program, as well as the response of consumers and manufacturers. The required improvements in car fuel economy are more stringent than those required for light trucks. Both New Jersey and Washington State passed legislation to establish standards related to vehicle emissions, and in 2008 Washington also passed an act to create a framework to reduce GHG emissions in the transportation sector.

In 2005, the Climate Stewardship Act and the New Apollo Energy Act were passed, focusing on achieving reductions in greenhouse gases. Requirements would be broader than in the past, applying to the electricity, transportation, industry, and commercial sectors. These federal acts were similar to those already enacted on a state level. In the same year, the Energy Policy Act established the first national energy plan in over a decade. It was intended to encourage and energy conservation through the promotion of efficiency in the home, as well as through the promotion of alternative and renewable energy sources for the federal government. It also sought to reduce US dependence on foreign sources of energy while supporting continued research and offering tax credits for making home improvements (using residential solar energy systems). It also included tax credits to consumers for purchasing hybrid cars.

The Safe Climate Act of 2006 granted the EPA broad authority to establish regulations. It was followed by several proposed amendments to existing acts, including the Climate Security Bill of 2007, a global warming bill considered by the US Senate to reduce greenhouse gases. Also known as the Lieberman-Warner bill (because it was introduced by Senators Joseph Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, and John Warner, Republican of Virginia), this bill was filibustered and effectively killed in June of 2008, with forty-eight senators voting to invoke cloture and end debate, thirty-six opposing that motion, and sixteen abstaining or absent. However, because six of the absent senators indicated that they would have supported the cloture motion, the 2008 vote represented the first time that a majority of the US Senate seemed to support legislation mandating GHG reductions through a cap-and-trade system. In such a system, limits are placed on total permissible GHG emissions, and permits are issued to polluters to emit specific amounts of GHGs. These permits are tradable commodities, so the market functions to motivate emission reductions.

In 2007, President Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act, which was designed to improve vehicle fuel economy and increase incentives to create subsidies for alternative fuels. The act mandated energy efficiency of lightbulbs, changed the efficiency standards for appliances, and aimed to reduce total energy use in federal buildings by 30 percent.

Following the inauguration of President Barack Obama in 2009, passage of cap-and-trade legislation became a top priority of the new administration. In May of 2009, US representatives Henry Waxman of California and Edward Markey of Massachusetts introduced a new cap-and-trade bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, known informally as the Waxman-Markey bill. The economic crisis of 2008-2009 rendered the bill controversial, however. Critics worried that the bill would increase the cost of producing energy and thereby increase the price of every manufactured and transported good. Supporters minimized the immediate impact of the bill on prices and emphasized the urgency of addressing global warming while it was still possible. The bill narrowly passed the House in June by a vote of 219 to 212, marking the first time either house of Congress had passed a cap-and-trade law.

Under the administration of President Donald J. Trump, the implementation of previous climate legislation was reversed. This included provisions of the Clean Power Plan and the National Environmental Policy Act. Both of these legislative actions were related to US participation in the 2015 Paris Agreement, which seeks to reduce Greenhouse gas emissions. In 2017, the Trump administration suspended domestic implementation of the Paris Agreement, effectively withdrawing the United States from this accord.

On January 20, 2021, President Joe Biden signed an executive order mandating the United States rejoin the Paris Agreement. On August 17, 2022, President Biden signed Ihe Inflation Reduction Act into law. This legislation pledged $369 Billion in funds to counter rising global temperatures. An increase in resources was earmarked to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for enhanced weather forecasting and research grants. Also, funds were allocated for clean-energy investments and clean up efforts in economically disadvantaged areas.

Context

Although US legislation since the 1960s has attempted to decrease the negative effects of climate change, the causes of and solutions to climate change problems are not clear-cut. In fact, there is still controversy about the nature, extent, causes, and very existence of global warming. What is clear is that all countries must assess and understand the roles they need to play in decreasing the risk of serious consequences, including incorporating a collaborative international response and thinking globally.

Because the United States is among the top GHG emitters, and particularly because the United States plays a global leadership role, it is especially important that Americans lead the way both in developing policies that can address the negative impacts of climate change and in working collaboratively with world nations to implement action that meets the needs of many stakeholders. Doing nothing could have catastrophic effects on the environment, while taking action could harm the national economy. Legislation must balance these concerns.

Key Concepts

• carbon dioxide: a colorless, odorless greenhouse gas that is emitted by burning fossil fuels
• climate action plan: a plan that identifies cost-effective ways to reduce GHG emissions
• climate change: changes in long-term trends in the average weather of a given region
• emissions cap: a mandatory limit on the amount of GHG emissions that can be released into the atmosphere by a given nation, business, or other specific entity
• greenhouse effect: the process whereby certain gases in a planet’s atmosphere prevent heat from escaping into space
• greenhouse gases (GHGs): gases that contribute to the greenhouse effect

Bibliography

Hua, Chen, et al. “Effects of Land-Cover Change on Terrestrial Carbon Dynamics in the Southern United States.” Journal of Environmental Quality 35 (2006): 1533-1547.

"Factbox: Donald Trump's Legacy-Six Policy Takeaways. ” Rueters, 30 Oct. 2020, www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-legacy-factbox/factbox-donald-trumps-legacy-six-policy-takeaways-idUSKBN27F1GK. Accessed 19 Jan. 2023.

Litz, Franz T. Toward a Constructive Dialogue on Federal and State Roles in US Climate Change Policy. Arlington, Va.: Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 2008.

Negra, C., et al. “Indicators of Carbon Storage in U.S. Ecosystems.” Journal of Environmental Quality 37 (2008): 1376-1382.

"President Trump Announces Withdrawal from Paris Agreement.” Colombia Law School,, 2017, climate.law.columbia.edu/content/president-trump-announces-withdrawal-paris-agreement-0. Accessed 19 Jan. 2023.

Rabe, Barry G. Race to the Top: The Expanding Role of the U.S. State Renewable Portfolio Standards. Arlington, Va.: Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 2006.

"Biden Signs Historic Climate Bill as Scientists Applaud.” Scientific American, 17 Aug. 2022, www.scientificamerican.com/article/biden-signs-historic-climate-bill-as-scientists-applaud. Accessed 19 Jan. 2023.

Zeng, Ning, et al. “Sustainable Development: Climate Change—The Chinese Challenge.” Science 319, no. 5864 (2008): 730-731.

Zyla, Kathryn, and Josh Bushinsky. Designing a Cap-and-Trade Program for the Midwest. Arlington, Va.: Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 2008.