BulletProofBlog the blog on crisis communications

As the UN-sponsored climate talks in Copenhagen began their first official day, Lisa Jackson, the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), was in Washington, D.C. starting the week with a bang. She announced an “endangerment finding” that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare and that emissions of such gases could now be regulated by the EPA under the federal Clean Air Act.

According to administration officials, the endangerment finding will serve as the foundation for setting emission standards – first for vehicles, and then for some 10,000 to 14,000 large power plants and industrial facilities that are considered major sources of emissions. The Obama administration has set an ambitious schedule for these regulations, establishing a March 2010 deadline for the vehicle rule.

At first, media commentators framed the announcement as one that would provide the U.S. with greater leverage during international negotiations in Copenhagen. As the week wore on, however, anonymous administration officials indicated that the move could provide the White House with leverage here at home as well. One unnamed official was quoted as saying: “If you [Congress] don’t pass this legislation (the so-called cap and trade bill) then… the EPA is going to have to regulate in this area. And it is not going to be able to regulate on a market-based way.”

This not-so-subtle ultimatum could be seen as a move to compel business and industry to actually push for a cap and trade bill, rather than wait for cap and cap regulations from the EPA. But commercial interests opposed to cap and trade legislation would be wise not to jump on the bandwagon just yet.

“The Administration wants to do this through legislation, not regulation,” says John Parker Sweeney, a leading environmental regulation expert with the law firm Womble Carlyle, and chair of the DRI Climate Change Task Force. “Emission regulations would be vulnerable to litigation because the Clean Air Act was not designed for naturally occurring emissions. New legislation, on the other hand, may eliminate that problem, although it may create new problems of its own.”

It’s also important to note that while the Administration may have “tailpipe” (vehicle) regulations in place by March 2010, it is wildly optimistic to believe that they can develop the much more complex “stationary” (facilities) regulations as quickly. In fact, because of the vulnerability to litigation, the threat of regulation may be more impactful than the actual rules.

There is no doubt the administration is serious in its efforts to cut emissions of greenhouse gases one way or another – but that doesn’t mean businesses and industry should back a bill they don’t support simply because the alternative might be worse. With public opinion trending against the cap and trade bill, they do have time to further mobilize stakeholders concerned about jobs and the economy, along with the environment – and send a powerful message to legislators who may feel the same, but just don’t know it yet.

Don Hannaford is Senior Vice President and Chair of the Public Affairs Practice at Levick Strategic Communications, the nation's top crisis communications firm, and a contributing author to Bulletproof Blog. Connect with Levick on Twitter: @Levick.