Biden’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program Dealt a Massive Blow: A Win for the Economy and Freedom
In a move lauded by some as a victory over unnecessary federal interference, the United States took decisive action on Friday to dismantle an overly complex program aimed at tracking greenhouse gas emissions across the US economy. This is yet another step in the current administration’s answer to the question of climate change – a downplaying of the purported crisis in favor of economic freedom and prosperity.
Initiated in 2010, the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) is a tangled web of bureaucracy which covers more than 8,000 facilities. This includes power plants, fuel suppliers, and manufacturing sites, said to account for 85-90 percent of the country’s alleged contributions to global warming.
Curiously, the program seems to favor beyond reason the proliferation of new oil, gas, and coal extractions, while consistently, and some might argue unfairly, undermining the efforts of burgeoning industries like solar and wind power.
Many have long argued that the GHGRP is essentially needless bureaucracy that does little to contribute to the tangible improvement of air quality. The program appears to focus more on paperwork and data aggregation than on the implementation of any substantive environmental safeguards.
Although the GHGRP was initially authorized by an act of Congress, the current administration contends that there is no legal requirement to continue collecting all the erstwhile data, exempting only data regarding methane emissions.
The introduction of a climate law established a methane fee that targets oil and gas operations. However, a new law was recently enacted, setting forth that such data reporting should only commence from 2034. This legislative adjustment would effectively freeze all related data collection until then.
Critics instantly reacted to this development, accusing the current administration of using this as an underhanded tactic to obscure any perceived environmental damage. In the painfully predictable, overwrought vernacular of the naysayers, they claim ‘If we can’t say what a facility is doing, we can’t hold that facility accountable.’
They also express alarm over the supposed implications of this data suppression, arguing it would negatively impact climate-related actions on various levels from the local to the international sphere. Their assertion is rigged with hyperbole and at odds with commonsense environmental management practices.
Members of the Democratic Party had foreseen this action, following their obtainment of documents earlier in the year that hinted at the impending change. Their resistance is expected, given their known biases towards favoring excessive governmental control and regulation.
Over the years, the GHGRP has accumulated emissions data from over 8,000 facilities. Supporters of the program believe this data to be invaluable to various stakeholders, including policymakers, scholars, financial investors, and the general public.
The very data that is now being put on hold forms the basis of the nation’s greenhouse gas inventory and fulfills international emissions reporting obligations. Proponents of the program argue it sets the benchmark for many businesses’ climate information disclosures.
Historically, the data from GHGRP has enabled U.S. industry to make bold claims of superior environmental performance when compared against international competitors. They argue that dismantling the program would give an unfair advantage to foreign competitors, notably China.
The narrative being pushed by the critics of the administration seems narrow-minded at best. While they are quick to point out the potential negatives of this move, they seemingly fail to acknowledge the positive impacts which include cutting unnecessary bureaucracy, promoting economic freedom, and accentuating U.S. sovereignty. In the midst of all this controversy, one thing is clear: the current administration continues to pursue its own path in addressing climate change, privileging national prosperity over contrived ‘global commitments.’