The Left is acting as if its political dominance — super majorities in both houses of Congress and, of course, the Presidency — eliminates the need for thoughtful debate. Over the past eight months, politicians in Washington have pushed an ambitious agenda highlighted by several trillion dollar proposals (stimulus, health care and climate), all of which deserved substantive debate and cautious consideration.

Unfortunately, all these proposals were rushed, diminishing debate even as dissenters were summarily dismissed. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) accused boisterous dissenters of being “un-American,” while Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) characterized efforts to engage in a substantive debate as “obstructionist tactics.” Similarly, President Obama often notes that “doing nothing” is not an option. Critics and opponents of liberal reform are now in the crosshairs.

All this rhetoric obscures one simple fact: Americans are genuinely concerned with the direction of our country. Recent events at town hall meetings across the country are evidence the American people want to engage in a genuine debate about our country’s future. Unfortunately, the Left would rather ignore or demagogue the existence of alternative points of view. And while you wouldn’t know it from the media coverage, there are plenty of alternatives.

Let’s take a look.

Stimulus

During the “stimulus” debate, President Obama said “the strongest democracies flourish from frequent and lively debate.” But, he added, Congress needed to “pass this plan” “without delay.” Such a formulation, while eloquent, was intended to dismiss the very thoughtful options proposed by others. Republicans in the House and Senate offered a comprehensive alternative. Senator Jim DeMint’s (R-S.C.) American Option emphasized international competitiveness and aimed to reward entrepreneurship. Senator John Ensign’s (R-Nev.) Fix Housing First Act, while flawed, was another good-faith alternative. There were plenty of good ideas to stimulate the economy. What was lacking was our political leaders’ willingness to engage in real debate.

Health Care Reform

Senator Reid’s fond of saying that those who oppose liberal health care reform support the “status quo.” Yet a quick glance at The Patients’ Choice Act of 2009 demonstrates that no one has a monopoly on reform.

The legislation, introduced by Senators Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Richard Burr (R-N.C.) along with Representatives Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) and Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), is equally as ambitious in its attempts to transform America’s health care system, though it does so through very different mechanisms. The aforementioned Senators repeatedly offered to discuss their proposal with Senator Reid. According to well-placed sources, the invitation has gone unacknowledged.

Senator DeMint also has his Health Care Freedom Plan, which is far from the status quo. Again, ideas are abundant and, in this case, actually preceded the hodgepodge of liberal ideas being discussed.

“Clean Energy”

In case you haven’t noticed, the President and many of his allies have abandoned their climate-change rhetoric, instead opting for code words like “clean energy incentives,” “all of the above” and “jobs.” The new verbiage is based on poll-tested language that was necessitated when the public rejected a cap-and-trade scheme. If liberals want to talk about energy production and jobs, conservatives have ideas and actual legislative proposals that would really work.

The American Energy Act, introduced by House Republicans, and the energy-focused No Cost Stimulus Act introduced by Senator David Vitter (R-La.) and Representative Rob Bishop (R-Utah) are just two examples. This isn’t the debate the House of Representatives had this year, but it’s the debate the American people deserve.

Small Ticket Alternatives

The existence of alternatives is readily apparent to any intellectually honest observer. And alternatives were offered on other contentious laws enacted this year. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) offered a conservative alternative to the State Children’s Health Insurance Program expansion. Senator Burr offered an alternative, along with Senator Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), on tobacco regulation reform. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) offered a thoughtful and workable alternative to the wage discrimination legislation. This is hardly a “just say no” philosophy.

New, Innovative Ideas

Conservatives have also offered some innovative ideas of their own. Representative Joe Pitts (R-Penn.) introduced legislation that would bring a new approach to nuclear power, jettisoning subsidies in favor of regulatory certainty. Representative Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) and Senator Vitter introduced the RAISE Act, which would remove the “seniority ceiling” on wages paid to unionized workers. Senator John Thune (R-S.D.) introduced the Government Ownership Exit Plan Act to set a date certain for ending government ownership of banks, auto companies and various other private entities.

It is disingenuous to say conservatives are without ideas. If the media, Congress and the President are interested in real reform, real dialogue and a real American-style debate, they should recognize that they don’t hold a monopoly on ideas, community organizing or the passion of the American people.

by Alex Alexiev

Standing in front of an array of photovoltaic solar panels at Nellis Air Force Base last Wednesday, President Obama gave us to understand that his vision for an America powered by clean, renewable energy and awash in green jobs is becoming a reality faster than anyone could have imagined. Nellis, near Las Vegas, is the home of the largest solar-energy plant in the Western Hemisphere and, in the president’s words, a “shining example” of what renewable energy can do to put our economy on a “firmer foundation for economic growth.” It is a success story that needs to be replicated “in cities and states across America,” Obama said, and he announced a “solar energy technology program” to do just that.

The figures do indeed look impressive at first sight. The $100-million plant was built without a penny of government money, we are told, yet it provides the base with electric power costing 2.2 cents per kilowatt/hour, which is less than one-fourth of the 9 cents that Nevada Power charges its other customers. The annual savings will amount to $1 million, guaranteed for 20 years. Proof positive, it seems, that our green future is now. Or is it?

Beyond these numbers, uncritically reported by the mainstream media, is the reality of a make-believe industry touted by environmental zealots, corporate freeloaders parading as entrepreneurs, and a president capable of staggering disingenuousness. If the Nellis solar project is a “shining example,” it is a shining example of everything that’s wrong with Obama’s green delusions. The project makes no economic sense on its own merits and, like all renewable-energy projects, was made possible only by a combination of government coercion and state and federal handouts at the expense of utility customers and the American taxpayer. The coercion in this case came in the form of a state mandate that Nevada utilities must obtain 20 percent of their power from hugely expensive renewable sources by 2015; the handouts came in the form of a 30 percent federal tax credit, accelerated depreciation rates, “solar energy credits,” and similar goodies. It is such government largesse — and the promise of more to come — that convinces the renewable-energy industry’s corporate welfare queens to line up behind dubious projects like Nellis.

In his speech at Nellis, President Obama asserted that he wants “everybody to know what we’re doing here in Vegas,” and he pointed to Germany as an example to follow in the solar business. He should have followed his own advice and looked more closely at the German example. After Germany guaranteed solar producers a rate seven times as high as the market rate, the country’s electric bill jumped by 38 percent in one year.

Obama also should have mentioned what happens to investors who fall for Washington’s green hype. For the two private companies involved in the Nellis project, it has not been a success story. SunPower Corp., the builder of the solar plant, has lost 75 percent of its market value in just the past year and is facing an uncertain future (to put it mildly). MMA Renewable Ventures, a San Francisco–based firm, which financed the project, was recently sold to the Spanish company Fotowatio for the fire-sale price of $19.7 million, after losing more than half of its business between 2007 and 2008.

The Spanish purchase of the dying MMA made no business sense except in one critical area: It allowed Fotowatio to establish a beachhead in the United States, which, with $20 billion of green-energy tax incentives in 2010 alone, increasingly looks like the world’s last refuge for solar freeloaders. Most European countries have seen the damage that green energy can do to their economies and are rapidly (if quietly) scaling back their support. This is especially true in the countries that have been leaders on solar and wind power. Both Germany and Spain have dramatically slashed their subsidies for renewables, and Spain has reduced its commitment to green power from 2400 megawatts in 2008 to 500 megawatts or less in 2009.

There is yet another lesson from Spain that Obama prefers not to discuss. The $100-million Nellis project created 200 jobs at a cost of $500,000 per job. The longer Spanish experience, according to a recent study from Juan Carlos University, shows a cost of $774,000 for each government-subsidized green job created since 2000. More disturbingly, for each of these jobs, 2.2 jobs in other industries were destroyed because of higher energy prices, not counting manufacturers who vote with their feet. This is surely a success story that Americans can do without.

On April 17, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an endangerment finding, saying that global warming poses a serious threat to public health and safety. Thus, almost anything that emits carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases could be regulated under the Clean Air Act. This is the first official action taken by the federal government to regulate carbon dioxide.

The endangerment finding is the initial step in a long regulatory process that could lead to the EPA requiring regulations for almost anything that emits carbon dioxide. Automobiles would likely be the first target, but subsequent regulations could extend to a million or more buildings and small businesses, including hospitals, schools, restaurants, churches, farms, and apartments. The following five reasons explain why this would be a big, costly mistake.

1. It’s an Economy Killer

Above anything else, any attempt to reduce carbon dioxide would be poison to an already sick economy. Even when the economy does recover, the EPA’s proposed global warming policy would severely limit economic growth.

Since 85 percent of the U.S. economy runs on fossil fuels that emit carbon dioxide, imposing a cost on CO2 is equivalent to placing an economy-wide tax on energy use. The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis study of the economic effects of carbon dioxide cuts found cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses of $7 trillion by 2029 (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars), single-year GDP losses exceeding $600 billion in some years (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars), energy cost increases of 30 percent or more, and annual job losses exceeding 800,000 for several years. Hit particularly hard is manufacturing, which will see job losses in some industries that exceed 50 percent.

High energy costs result in production cuts, reduced consumer spending, increased unemployment, and ultimately a much slower economy. But importantly, higher energy prices fall disproportionately on the poor, since low-income households spend a larger percentage of their income on energy.

2. Negligible Environmental Benefit

The extraordinary perils of CO2 regulation for the American economy come with little, if any, environmental benefit. In fact, analysis by the architects of the endangerment finding, the EPA, strongly suggests that a 60 percent reduction in carbon-dioxide emissions by 2050 will reduce global temperature by 0.1 to 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2095.

Some environmental alarmists believe saving the environment should come at any cost, but when the benefit is barely noticeable, such an extreme viewpoint still cannot be justified.

3. Lack of Scientific Consensus

The decision to regulate carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases was supported by supposed compelling scientific evidence. For example, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson “relied heavily upon the major findings and conclusions from recent assessments of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPPC].” Additionally, the EPA cited harmful impacts including increased droughts, floods, wildfires, heat waves, and sea level rises as a result of climate change. But the reality is that natural disasters are just that–they occur with or without global warming.

The scientific consensus behind global warming, especially the seriousness of the impacts, is anything but strong. Last December, the U.S. Senate Minority released a report that included 650 dissenting scientists refuting claims made in the IPCC report. That number has grown to over 700, more than 13 times the number of scientists (52) who had a direct role in the IPCC report.

4. Backdoor Policy

The United States Congress has been reluctant to pass any global warming legislation or engage in international climate reduction treaties. Last year’s most noted global warming legislative proposals was S. 2191, the America’s Climate Security Act of 2007, originally sponsored by Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA).

This cap-and-trade bill would have set a limit on the emissions of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide from the combustion of coal, oil, and natural gas. A number of concerns existed, chief among them the impact on already-soaring gasoline prices, and consequently the bill was withdrawn by its Senate supporters after only three days of debate.

While some Members of Congress undoubtedly support the EPA’s attempt to curb global warming, the fact that unelected and unaccountable EPA bureaucrats are trying to bypass legislative efforts makes it all the more objectionable.

Equally indefensible is any attempt to use the threat of EPA regulations to induce Congress into enacting a cap-and-trade bill it would not support otherwise. Members should not be forced to prematurely pass a bill without fully understanding its effects and consequences.

5. Expanded Bureaucracy

Having EPA bureaucrats micromanage the economy, all in the name of combating global warming, would be a chilling shift to a command-and-control system in which EPA officials regulate just about every aspect of the market.

Beyond the costs of such actions, the red tape and permitting delays are almost unfathomable. Though the Administration recently enacted a stimulus bill and touted “shovel ready” construction projects to boost the economy, EPA regulations would essentially assure that a great deal of such economic activity would be held up for months, if not years.

For instance, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to file environmental impact statements for EPA review before moving forward with projects. According to the Government Accountability Office, normally it takes a federal construction project an average of 4.4 years to complete a NEPA review. Along with the Clean Water Act’s Section 404 requirements, before a shovel can break ground, it could take 5.6 years for a project to jump through all the normal environmental hoops. Granting the authority for one of the largest and unprecedented regulatory undertakings in U.S. history would greatly expand the EPA’s power.

The kind of industrial-strength EPA red tape that routinely imposes hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars in compliance costs could now be imposed for the first time on many commercial buildings, farms, and all but the smallest of businesses. Not only would these costs and delays hamper the private sector, but the paperwork could paralyze federal and state environmental regulators, drawing resources away from more useful endeavors.

A Dangerous Step

The EPA’s official announcement commences a 60-day public comment period before the agency issues a final ruling. Using the Clean Air Act to regulate CO2 would likely be the most expensive and expansive environmental regulation in history and will bypass the legislative process completely. In essence, the decisions of few will drastically alter the lives of many–all for a change in the Earth’s temperature too small to ever notice.

President Obama’s global warming agenda has been losing support in Congress, but why let an irritant like democratic consent interfere with saving the world? So last Friday the Environmental Protection Agency decided to put a gun to the head of Congress and play cap-and-trade roulette with the U.S. economy.

Ed Markey

The pistol comes in the form of a ruling that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant that threatens the public and therefore must be regulated under the 1970 Clean Air Act. This so-called “endangerment finding” sets the clock ticking on a vast array of taxes and regulation that EPA will have the power to impose across the economy, and all with little or no political debate.

This is a momentous decision that has the potential to affect the daily life of every American, yet most of the media barely noticed, and those that did largely applauded. When America’s Founders revolted against “taxation without representation,” this is precisely the kind of kingly diktat they had in mind.

Michigan Democrat John Dingell helped to write the Clean Air Act, as well as its 1990 revision, and he says neither was meant to apply to carbon. But in 2007 five members of the Supreme Court followed the environmental polls and ordered the EPA to determine if CO2 qualified as a “pollutant.” The Bush Administration prudently slow-walked the decision. As Peter Glaser, an environmental lawyer at Troutman Sanders, told Congress in 2008, “The country will experience years, if not decades, of regulatory agony, as EPA will be required to undertake numerous, controversial, time-consuming, expensive and difficult regulatory proceedings, all of which ultimately will be litigated.”

The Obama EPA has now opened this Pandora’s box. The centerpiece of the Clean Air Act is something called the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, or NAAQS, under which the EPA decides the appropriate atmospheric concentration of a given air pollutant. Under this law the states must adopt measures to meet a NAAQS goal, and the costs cannot be considered. For global warming, this is going to be a hugely expensive futility parade.

Greenhouse gases mix in the atmosphere, and it doesn’t matter where they come from. A ton of emissions from Ohio has the same effect on global CO2 as a ton emitted in China; and even if Ohio figured out a way to reduce its emissions to zero, it would still have no control over the carbon content in its ambient air. But under the law, EPA would be required to severely punish Ohio — and every state — for not complying with NAAQS.

Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA also must regulate all “major” sources of emissions that emit more than 250 tons of an air pollutant in a year. That includes “any building, structure, facility or installation.” This might be a reasonable threshold for conventional pollutants such as SOX or NOX, but it’s extremely low for carbon. Hundreds of thousands of currently unregulated sources will suddenly be subject to the EPA’s preconstruction permitting and review, including schools, hospitals, malls, restaurants, farms and colleges. According to EPA, the average permit today takes 866 hours for a source to prepare, and 301 hours for EPA to process. So this regulatory burden will increase by several orders of magnitude.

The EPA took the highly unusual step of not accompanying its endangerment finding with actual proposed regulations. For now, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson claims her agency will only target cars and trucks. That is bad enough. It probably means, for example, that California’s mileage fleet burdens will seep out to every other state. So even as taxpayers are now paying tens of billions of dollars to prop up GM and Chrysler, Ms. Jackson will be able to tell the entire auto industry it must make even more small cars that consumers don’t want to buy.

Still, why confine the rule only to cars and trucks? By the EPA’s own logic, it shouldn’t matter where carbon emissions come from. Carbon from a car’s tailpipe is the same as carbon from a coal-fired power plant. And transportation is responsible for only 28% of U.S. emissions, versus 34% for electricity generation. Ms. Jackson is clearly trying to limit the immediate economic impact of her ruling, so as not to ignite too great a business or consumer backlash.

But her half-measure is also too clever by half. By finding carbon a public danger, she is inviting lawsuits from environmental lobbies demanding that EPA regulate all carbon sources. Massachusetts and two other states have already sued in federal court to force the EPA to create a NAAQS for CO2.

Which brings us back to the Obama Administration’s political roulette. Democrats know that their cap-and-tax agenda is losing ground, notably among Midwestern Senators. The EPA “endangerment” is intended to threaten businesses and state and local governments until they surrender and support the Obama agenda. The car industry is merely the first target, meant to be the object lesson.

Massachusetts Democrat Ed Markey put it this way at MIT recently: “Do you want the EPA to make the decision or would you like your Congressman or Senator to be in the room and drafting legislation? . . . Industries across the country will just have to gauge for themselves how lucky they feel if they kill legislation in terms of how the EPA process will include them.”

This “Dirty Harry” theory of governance — Do you feel lucky? — is as cynical as it is destructive. And contra Mr. Markey, if cap and tax is killed this year, it will be done in by Democrats, many of whom are starting to realize the economic harm it would inflict. In March, the Senate voted 89 to 8 on a resolution vowing to pass a climate bill only if “such legislation does not increase electricity or gasoline prices.”

That’s called democracy, but for the Obama Administration such debate is an inconvenient truth. If they can’t get Congress to pass their agenda, they’ll use EPA and the courts to impose it. How lucky do you feel?

The professional practice of pure science, like most other honorable life pursuits, has its opinion leaders, its majority opinion and its minority opinion. However, the mix of pure science with politics, which is necessary from a practical standpoint, has obvious pitfalls.

To some large or small degree, highly opinionated and domineering personalities, stilted viewpoints and sometimes malevolent politics must enter into the recipe. The opinions and domineering seem to flow more freely around the time of the year we call Earth Day (for those who aren’t hip, that would be April 22 every year). When politicking dominates the perspective of pure science on any day of the year, we all lose.

Al Gore

In our combined 50 years of professional atmospheric and environmental science experience in government, academia, activism and consulting, we have observed a dichotomy between the real and the academic-bureaucratic worlds of environmental science.

Scientists and engineers who work hands-on in the trenches with real-world environmental-science challenges on a daily basis are skeptical of claims of a substantial influence on global climate from human activity.

Academicians who view the world from their computer screens, theories, limited field investigations and well-read published reports are not only true believers but avid promoters of the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

The academics, whose student and public admiration and financial well-being depend on an urgent topic, have a powerful incentive to focus on a simple human-produced cause and therefore a human-correcting solution to the incredibly complex challenge of global climate warming. This narrow focus limits the creativity so necessary to scientific discovery that truly resolves issues and serves society efficiently.

Furthermore, because many students in general education are exposed only to superficial knowledge in science throughout their primary, secondary and college careers, such students as working, voting adults are relegated simply to trusting the consensus of experts on any even modestly complex science matter. For example, when the “lies, damn lies” and AGW statistics are proffered as proof that the Earth is warming because of the excesses of human comfort and that it will continue to do so if humans don’t immediately get less comfortable, the insufficiently educated or uninitiated must simply comply. Let us offer an alternative.

We encourage everyone to begin to educate himself on this important topic by taking a look at the latest global temperature trend data through 2008. A good day to start your personal education might be Earth Day, and a good place to find the data of personal enlightenment is at the Web site of the National Climatic Data Center (www.ncdc.noaa.gov).

Trend data will show you a continued drop in the average level for the world’s thermometers since 2005. Be assured that the AGW enthusiasts will still obsess that 2008 was one of the highest years on record. However, suppose you were to look at the data trend as if you were riding an amusement park’s roller coaster. Your perspective would be quite different depending on which side of the big hill you were on.

What about bureaucrats? Government agencies with their technical and nontechnical personnel have an enormous responsibility. Such agencies must generate, carry out and oversee ostensibly the best available science to correct real environmental problems.

By and large, government environmental agencies have performed a yeoman’s effort considering the monumental task. For instance, government pollution-control agents, interfacing with the general public and industries in their jurisdiction, live with the degree of reasonableness of government laws and regulations and perform admirably.

But, here again, agencies and individual agents can become politicized. If so, the real will and benefit of the people may be usurped by a political program, pet project or personal infatuation masquerading as, say, a climate sickness with its attendant scientific solution – although the solution eventually is exposed as a very expensive cure for an illness that never existed.

We have had a long history of earnest interest in the environment. On the first Earth Day in 1970, one of us biked to school with a sign proclaiming the day and later frequented outdoor environmental forums at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. We have actively participated in paid and volunteer environmental projects throughout our careers.

Our serious interest in the environment, however, is not unreasonable concern. Much personal, professional and academic experience tells us there’s much more to be learned about the hugely complex climate system. And simple, politically motivated declarations of supposed climate facts and proposed solutions to dubious anthropogenic contributions to global warming will only abridge a full understanding of the biosphere and humans’ limited interference with its natural operation.

A return to pure science and its very cautious association with politics, improved science education, and diligent generation and implementation of environmental regulations will make us all winners this Earth Day and beyond.

Self-proclaimed victims of global warming or those who “expect to suffer” from it – from beachfront property owners to asthmatics – for the first time would be able to sue the federal government or private businesses over greenhouse gas emissions under a little-noticed provision slipped into the House climate bill.

Henry A. Waxman

Environmentalists say the measure was narrowly crafted to give citizens the unusual standing to sue the U.S. government as a way to force action on curbing emissions. But the U.S. Chamber of Commerce sees a new cottage industry for lawyers.

“You could be spawning lawsuits at almost any place [climate-change modeling] computers place at harm’s risk,” said Bill Kovacs, energy lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The bill was written by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman, California Democrat, and Rep. Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Democrat. Both lawmakers declined repeated requests for comment.

Edward J. Markey

The Waxman-Markey blueprint, including the lawsuit provision, has just been released, and the Senate is drafting its own energy bill. But Mr. Waxman has set an accelerated schedule for passing the bill through his committee by Memorial Day and President Obama lists an energy overhaul bill as one of his top priorities.

David Doniger, senior counsel with the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the measure is similar to a landmark environmental ruling from the Supreme Court allowing states to sue the federal government for damages from climate change – largely on the basis of lost shorelines from rising sea levels – but did not set grounds for people to file lawsuits.

“The [Chamber of Commerce] is trying to say the global-warming legislation is scarier than global warming itself,” Mr. Doniger said. “It’s part of a menu of scare tactics they are compiling.”

Under the House bill, if a judge rules against the government, new rules would have to be drafted to alleviate the problems associated with climate change. If a judge rules against a company, the company would have to purchase additional “carbon emission allowances” through a cap-and-trade program that is to be created by Congress.

The measure sets grounds for anyone “who has suffered, or reasonably expects to suffer, a harm attributable, in whole or in part,” to government inaction to file a “citizen suit.” The term “harm” is broadly defined as “any effect of air pollution (including climate change), currently occurring or at risk of occurring.”

It would allow citizens to seek up to $75,000 in damages from the government each year, but would cap the total amount paid out each year at $1.5 million, committee staff said. It is unclear whether the provision would actually cap damages at $75,000 per person, because the U.S. law referenced does not establish payouts by the government.

The $1.5 million cap reflects a compromise reached with House Republicans in a 2007 version of the measure introduced by Mr. Waxman, committee staff said. Mr. Waxman and Mr. Markey wrote the measure into a broader climate plan introduced last week, although it was left out of a bill summary that committee staff provided at the time.

Republican committee staff said the measure has the potential to muddle the judicial system.

“Perhaps a more accurate title of the bill would be ‘The Lawyer Full-Employment and As-Seen-on-TV Global Warming Act of 2009,’ ” said Larry Neal, deputy Republican staff director for the House committee.

Democratic staffers said the measure provides guidance to the courts on how to apply existing Clean Air Act provisions. Private citizens can sue the government based on harm caused by pollutants currently regulated under the Clean Air Act – including nitrogen oxide and sulfur oxide – but they lack standing to sue for damages resulting from climate change.

Regulating carbon dioxide has been a hard slog for environmentalists, and some energy analysts say that the Waxman-Markey bill and parallel efforts by the Obama administration constitute a multifaceted attempt to achieve the goal by regulation if legislative attempts fail.

The “citizen suit” would allow people to force government action on climate change, seemingly a redundancy in a bill that would achieve that goal if passed. But environmentalists have been cautious in their tack, arguing that many environmental protections on the books were not vigorously enforced under the Bush administration.

Environmental lawyers played down the significance of the provision.

The measure would not guarantee payouts from the government or successful lawsuits, Mr. Doniger said, but would set the bar for people seeking to force the government to act on climate change.

He likened the measure to tort laws regarding cigarette smoke or cancer-causing chemicals, in which the harmful effects are not seen for decades.

“If this pollution isn’t curbed, it isn’t just today or tomorrow you have problems, it’s also 20 to 30 years from now,” Mr. Doniger said.

Expansion of the Clean Air Act to allow “citizen suits” on climate change has been a goal among environmental groups and moderate to liberal Democrats for many years – although the measure has never succeeded.

But amending the Clean Air Act is “potentially a big gamble” because it opens other sections of the act to modification during the bill-drafting process, said a Democratic energy lobbyist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of ties to committee members.