Basic Framework Applied to EPCRA Proposed GHG Registry

Values Framework:

The excessive emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) into the atmosphere can be equated into being a direct result of the over consumptive activity and behavior of the human race. The Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) has four major provisions:
· Emergency planning
· Emergency release notification
· Hazardous chemical storage reporting requirements
· Toxic chemical release inventory (Section 313).

The bill under examination in this case is a proposed GHG registry under EPCRA, which under Cohen’s criteria raises some critical questions of values. Given that the foundation of this bill is the creation of GHG registry for the purpose of reporting under what is commonly referred to as the “Right to Know” Act, the issue of right and wrong seems oblivious to based solely on the need to create such a registry and subsequently report it to the EPA.

Tradeoffs of economic well being, which Cohen states is a function of value (Cohen pg. 14), are paramount in this legislation. Cohen states in the text the good life “includes a high level of resource consumption” (Cohen pg. 14), which is directly proportion to atmospheric GHG emission in the post industrial revolution era.

Ethics and conflicting value are at the heart of the GHG and climate change debate. Most commonly associated with the conflict between sustainability and the need account for future generations, and the converse that all resources are for the dominion of man and should be exploited to maximize current well being are in direct conflict.

The developed and developing economies face such when one side is pleading with international law makers to create climate change frameworks when other economies may not survive to have a future generation.

What the GHG registry would is establish increase public accessibility to information and knowledge about who is contributing to GHG emission and by how much.

Political:

Politics associated with the need to address GHG emissions in the United States and abroad are sharply divided into two respective camps, which are those who are in strong support, and those who are in strong opposition to the climate change agenda. By virtue of the fact that a proposed GHG registry is in congress, its political legitimacy is apparent.

As Cohen cites property rights have been made to counter balance the environmental movement (Cohen pg. 21), however with GHG there are no administrative boundaries to define these rights, but winners and losers exist in the registry process.

Under the registry, affected facilities will be required to report GHG emissions and processes which generate these emissions. This will either force cost prohibitive change to their production practices or being viewed as an environmental bad actor in the public eye. Winners will be the planet, the atmosphere future generation, and those who choice to engage in development, which is conducive with less GHG production.

EPCRA is a federally managed framework, but the issue of GHG production and climate change is intertwined in all levels of government as the issues legitimacy is politically sensitive. The Bush administration’s removal of the United States from the Kyoto process resulted in various administrative and legal action at the state and local with regard to GHG production, reduction, mitigation and targets technologies. The legality to regulate GHG under the CAAA itself has made it all the way to the nine wise souls in Washington.

Science and Technology:

The GHG registry is pertinent due the potential impacts of climate change and/or global warming to the planet. Scientific certainty of the impact of anthropogenic GHG to the climate is at the heart of the matter when it comes any issue regarding potential cost prohibitive regulatory action.

The science is leaning toward validating GHG impacts to the climate however given the limited and disputed knowledge of climatic patterns a costly registry and reporting process can be a difficult sale especially in current economic times.

Technologies to eliminate or reduce GHG emission are available; however their cost effectiveness is highly volatile and subject to market manipulation. The price of oil has risen and fallen and supply and demand has not been the only factors. Given the large financial and political resources of the petroleum industry, along with price fluctuation, the viability of technological alternative to GHG producing activity changes by the day.

GHG activities can be halted, but at what real and opportunity cost and to whom. The logical assumption would be for developed countries to limit their GHG activity and allow developing countries some latitude to offset past sins. The GHG registry will allow the government to ascertain the magnitude of such activity by facility and sector.

Policy Design:

The GHG registry is the combination of a burden information disclosure and formal reporting being pleased on the affect facilities for the purpose of informing the government and the public of activity with respect to GHG production as well as establishing a formal methodology of tracking GHG producing activity.

The registry is a strategic process because it is established under the “Right to Know” act and heavy generation can be viewed by the public as bad acting, and no facility would want to fall in the classification of public opinion. It seems clear that industry is aware of why they have to report such activity although some do not agree with it.

From a public stand point there is only gain and non burden associated with regulation GHG activity in any way, but some could argue that the cost of compliance will be passed on to the consumer or result in a purging of the industry. Opinions in these matters usually mirror U.S. political party lines.

The incentive to comply with the GHG registry is to reduce GHG activity to avoid being subject to reporting or at least reporting data on the high end of the spectrum. There are a multitude of alternative technologies, tax and fee incentives, and regulatory waivers to encourage process GHG reduction.

Environmental Management:
The GHG registry is similar in design to the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI)currently regulated under EPCRA, what the proposed legislation would do is expand the scope of EPCRA authority to cover GHG emission based on their anticipated “toxic” to the climate or planet.

EPCRA has the experience to regulate and manage such a registry because the TRI has been in place for almost a generation and affected facilities have been subject to the compliance and enforcement process for most of that time. The reporting process will mirror the TRI so the EPA has a proven methodology of success to guide this program. This is not to infer that the TRI program is perfect, but it is functional.

Leadership in the EPA, which manages EPCRA changes depending on the ideology of the current administration however given the overwhelming public awareness in the developed world of GHG emission and their potential impacts, time will only lead toward a paradigm shift toward GHG reduction and mitigation the EPA will maintain a positive flow in the registry process.