On Thursday, Rep. Raul Grijalva introduced HR 2192, a bill on adapting to the impacts of climate change. The law would establish a "Natural Resources Climate Change Adaptation Panel" that would create a plan for several federal agencies to anticipate and seek to mitigate the effects of a changed planet.
The bill is very similar to the natural resource adaptation provisions (Title IV, Subtitle E, Subpart C) in the Waxman-Markey draft climate change legislation. Those provisions were a good start, though certainly not perfect (Holly Doremus and I previously analyzed the good and the bad of those provisions here).
E&E News reported (subscription required) that Grijalva's bill, along with a separate one in the works in the House Science Committee, are "expected to be voted on before Memorial Day and eventually to be folded into Waxman-Markey." If it came to it, should Waxman-Markey stumble, this bill could go ahead separately.
Rep. Grijalva's bill makes some changes, including:
I'd still like to see improvement particularly on three areas that we critiqued in the Waxman-Markey language on natural resource adaptation. That language failed to come to grips with the problem of identifying clear goals for natural resource adaptation efforts. Like the Waxman-Markey bill, Grijalva’s bill also continues to mandate a separate natural resource adaptation planning effort rather than integrating adaptation into existing planning and implementation structures. Finally, both bills only mandate natural resource adaptation planning by a few resource management agencies, failing to engage some important federal agencies in key aspects of the adaptation effort.
Showing 2,829 results
Alejandro Camacho | May 5, 2009
On Thursday, Rep. Raul Grijalva introduced HR 2192, a bill on adapting to the impacts of climate change. The law would establish a “Natural Resources Climate Change Adaptation Panel” that would create a plan for several federal agencies to anticipate and seek to mitigate the effects of a changed planet. The bill is very similar […]
James Goodwin | May 4, 2009
Last week I discussed how the institution of judicial review has been used to amplify the deregulatory nature of cost-benefit analysis. This week, I'll talk about some possible remedies. An unusual synergy exists between the institutions of cost-benefit analysis and judicial review. Under most circumstances, the institution of judicial review is arguably neutral with regard to […]
James Goodwin | May 1, 2009
For the last few years now, CPR’s Member Scholars have made the case that cost-benefit analysis is, by itself, fundamentally deregulatory in nature. Unfortunately, other institutions in our federal government tend to exacerbate the deregulatory nature of cost-benefit analysis. Whether by design or dumb luck, cost-benefit analysis allows regulatory opponents to use those institutions—most notably […]
Matthew Freeman | April 30, 2009
This morning, the Center for Progressive Reform’s Rena Steinzor testifies before the House Science and Technology Committee’s Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight. In her remarks, she calls on the White House to reshape the role of the director of OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs — the so-called regulatory czar. All too frequently OIRA […]
David Driesen | April 29, 2009
A coalition of conservative and moderate Democrats has recommended deleting section 336 of the Waxman-Markey climate change bill because of “concern among industry about potential new liability for any emitter” under that provision (see the proposed amendments). Some polluters’ objective, apparently, is to avoid liability for violating the law, and they recommend this deletion as […]
Matthew Freeman | April 29, 2009
This morning, the Center for Progressive Reform’s Rena Steinzor testifies before the House Science and Technology Committee’s Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight. In her remarks, she calls on the White House to reshape the role of the director of OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs — the so-called regulatory czar. All too frequently OIRA […]
A. Dan Tarlock | April 29, 2009
This post is written by CPR Member Scholars Dan Tarlock and Holly Doremus How has the Department of Interior fared during the first 100 days? If history is any guide, the issue may be more important than many people assume. With one major and one minor exception, Secretaries of the Interior stay put in Democratic […]
William Funk | April 28, 2009
There are few areas where the difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is more stark than that of the Freedom of Information Act. The FOIA, of course, requires agencies to provide copies of their records to any person upon request unless the record fits within one of nine specific exemptions. Among the most important […]
Rena Steinzor | April 28, 2009
Inside the Washington Beltway, we are awash in stories about President Obama’s first 100 days. Some are comparative—how is Obama doing in relationship to Franklin Roosevelt at the same point in his first term? Some are pure spin—“we’re competent and we love each other!" opines Rahm Emanuel, the obviously biased Obama chief of staff. And […]