The next occupant of the White House could find it difficult to roll back President Obama’s commitment to cut the country’s greenhouse gas emissions.
That’s because the next president would encounter many hurdles if he or she wanted to change Obama’s climate change plan, even though the agreement with China announced Wednesday is non-binding.
Many of the measures needed to meet Obama’s goal of slashing emissions at least 26 percent by 2025 might be in place by the time he leaves office, and trying to reverse course would mean going through many regulatory hoops — not to mention condemnation internationally.
And perhaps more importantly, private businesses and states might have already begun implementing the changes and have adjusted to the new normal by then. Even states and companies that have criticized a proposal to curb power plant emissions are privately figuring out how to comply with the new rules.
“The private sector wants regulatory certainty. I don’t think the private sector is going to react well to a new administration reversing course,” said Heather Coleman, climate change program manager with anti-poverty group Oxfam America.
The so-called “light bulb ban” that has angered Republicans because a 2007 law gradually phased out less energy-efficient products is a case in point. The $1.1 trillion spending bill Congress passed in January repealed the so-called ban, but little amounted of it because companies had already stopped making the bulbs and had no plans to restart.
“It turns out that once some of these things are up and running they become popular, they’re seen as effective,” said Alden Meyer, an observer of international climate negotiations and director of strategy and policy with the Union of Concerned Scientists. “It’s not impossible for a president to come in and tear those things up by the roots, but it’s not a slam dunk, either.”
Many said the climate agreement announced Wednesday in Beijing was politically significant by bringing the historically obstructionist China to the table, as it gets two nations that account for 45 percent of global emissions on the same page before international negotiations next year in Paris.
But meeting the targets could prove daunting, even for the current administration. Emissions reductions will need to double their pace between 2020 and 2025 compared with the rate between 2005 and 2020.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy said the administration arrived at the emissions targets through a calculation of what the feds are already doing, but it still would likely need to pursue more measures to reach its target. That could mean regulations in the oil and gas sector to reduce emissions of methane, a potent but short-lived greenhouse gas, noted Kevin Book, managing director with energy consulting group ClearView Energy Partners.
Such a move might not sit well with conservatives or Democrats in energy-producing states, which have benefited from a surge in fossil fuel production due to hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.
“He’ll be representing no one but himself. If Democrats embrace this plan, they’ll be saying, “those policies everyone hates, let’s make them worse,” said Chris Prandoni, director of energy and environment policy with Americans for Tax Reform. “Obama is setting a political time bomb just before he gets out of town.”
But that assumes the politics surrounding climate change remain the same, Meyer said. Already, Republicans are subduing previous skepticism about the man-made global warming and instead are relying on saying, “I’m not a scientist.” And China’s willingness to play ball on climate with the U.S. weakens Republicans’ argument that the U.S. should not potentially harm its economy while China does nothing.
Environmental groups also believe they will be able to keep the pressure on Republicans regarding climate change. Their successes in the 2014 midterm elections were few, but they did mobilize $85 million in spending, mostly from billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer, who plans to be active in the 2016 race as well.
“To put climate on the ballot for our presidential candidates in 2016, we knew we had to start by changing the conversation on climate in these midterm elections,” Steyer said in a statement through his Super PAC, NextGen Climate Action. “[W]e’re sending an unmistakable message to politicians who would deny basic science: voters are smart. They care about these issues. And the same old song and dance just won’t cut it next time around.”
