iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Lisa Murkowski Wants To Block The EPA From Regulating Greenhouse Gases, Has Democratic Co-Sponsor

Huffington Post   First Posted: 03/21/10 06:12 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 04:15 PM ET

Webb

Scroll Down For Update

It appears that one Republican female politician from Alaska has managed to drum up some Democratic support in the Senate. In a move that the New York Times editorial page called "mischievous," Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) wants to block the EPA for one year from regulating greenhouse gases as a pollutant from stationary sources like factories. This would also derail the finalization of standards on car emissions. Murkowski has proposed this amendment to an unrelated bill dealing with the national debt ceiling, which will be voted on this week.

Kate Sheppard from Mother Jones reported that late Friday night she got confirmation from Murkowski's office that the bill will have a Democratic co-sponsor, although no one has been able to definitively confirm who.

However, Sheppard has her suspicions that it's Virginia Sen. Jim Webb (D):

It wouldn't be that surprising if Webb joined Murkowski's effort. Last month Webb lambasted the Obama administration for pursuing an international deal on climate change in Copenhagen before the Senate had passed a climate bill. At the same time, he has pledged to vote against the cap-and-trade bills circulating in Congress.

When the EPA announced in December 2009 that greenhouse gases were a danger to human health and were now under the purview of the EPA, many saw this as the Obama administration moving forward with limiting emissions, whether or not Congress could get on board with passing cap and trade or further emissions laws.

The New York Times Editorial Board writes about Murkowski's plans,

Ms. Murkowski says she's concerned about global warming but worries even more about what she fears would be a bureaucratic nightmare if the E.P.A. were allowed to regulate greenhouse gases. She says she would prefer a broad legislative solution. So would President Obama. But unlike Ms. Murkowski, he would not unilaterally disarm the E.P.A. before Congress has passed a bill.

UPDATE: Senator Webb's office has given a statement on the issue to Mother Jones, and while they won't confirm if Webb will sign on to the EPA amendment, they do confirm that Webb opposes the EPA regulating greenhouse gases based on concerns about the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches.

Senator Webb has shared with Senator Murkowski his concerns about the EPA's latest finding, concerning the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions, in the absence of clear congressional involvement and direction. Since his campaign for the U.S. Senate, one of Senator Webb's principal themes has been to restore and maintain the proper balance of power between the executive branch and Congress. Senator Webb advanced similar arguments, concerning congressional engagement and approval, in August 2008 during the Bush Administration's negotiation of the Iraq Security Agreements.

He has said on related issues for many years that the regulatory power of the executive branch is derived specifically from the legislative branch. It should be applied narrowly and in strict conformity with the Constitution and clear legislation enacted by the Congress. An executive branch decision to broadly interpret a legislative statute--especially one involving sweeping implications for our country--without such direction from Congress is inappropriate.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

Scroll Down For Update It appears that one Republican female politician from Alaska has managed to drum up some Democratic support in the Senate. In a move that the New York Times editorial page call...
Scroll Down For Update It appears that one Republican female politician from Alaska has managed to drum up some Democratic support in the Senate. In a move that the New York Times editorial page call...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 182
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
01:36 AM on 01/23/2010
There is a video clip floating around of Congressman Steve Scalise of Louisiana giving Al Gore a hard time ( actually Scalise threw so many unrelated questions at him it would have confused anyone). And today this comes out in Steve Scalise's own state…a letter from 32 scientists, 27 of them from Louisiana suggesting that Governor Jindal take climate change more seriously as water is rising in Louisiana at a faster rate than previously expected.
You can read the letter here http://www.umces.edu/la-restore/SLRletter.pdf
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
08:50 PM on 01/31/2010
No, Louisiana is sinking into the ocean faster than people expected. Shutting off the natural flooding of the Mississippi River, which previously brought new sediments to raise the level of the delta land, wasn't a thoughtful idea, when looked at over the long run.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SFTor
03:09 AM on 01/22/2010
It is impossible to make the argument that CO2 is a danger to human health. It is not, unless you talk about concentrations at least an order of magnitude greater than what we see today.

To have federal agencies make random and unscientific decisions is not acceptable, no matter how noble the cause.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
hark
01:36 PM on 01/22/2010
What nonsense. This is a straw man's straw man argument. Nobody has declared CO2 to be a pollutant or a health hazard. It's a greenhouse gas, an increase in which contributes to global warming, which will produce effects that are devastating to our health, and to our planet as a whole. There is nothing unscientific or random about that.
02:54 PM on 01/22/2010
Actually, what you warmist are missing is scientific proof.

If CO2 was responsible for the 20 years of warming in the late 20th Century, there would be scientific evidence of it, not simply circumstantial indications.

The temperature did go up in from 1975 to 2000. Your assumption is that it was due to CO2. That is a theory, but there are a number of other theories as well. And although we can measure the warming that occurred, we cannot say what caused the warming.

But what of the evidence? If CO2 is the cause, there must be a warm spot in the troposphere. Where is it? It isn't there. And since CO2 has continued to increase, why hasn't the temperature continued to rise? They haven't.

So you have a theory that fits for about 38% of the time (CO2 has been significantly increasing for the past 65 years, but temperature increased only for 25 of those years). This isn't a very good fit. And the modeling that has been done does not predict what has happened in the past 10 years. So the observation doesn't support the theory nor do the models.

BTW, the EPA has no right to regulate CO2 if it isn't a pollutant.
04:07 AM on 01/21/2010
For once Jim Webb has his head on straight.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lbsaltzman
Permaculture and Sustainability
10:29 AM on 01/21/2010
If true his Jim Webb's head on is straight backwards.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
fumes
Midnight Toker
10:47 AM on 01/21/2010
at a guess..

your thought structure mirrors your sentence structure..

and you have absolutely no idea what i'm talking about lol..
11:07 PM on 01/20/2010
Screw global warming, we need to stop plate tectonics!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:13 PM on 01/20/2010
don't forget about asteroids!
06:52 PM on 01/21/2010
and hemoroids.
04:05 AM on 01/21/2010
Good point. And it might help if we reversed the rotation of the earth. I'm just saying.
06:44 PM on 01/20/2010
I have to wonder what these people will be saying in 10 or 20 years time. What will the excuses be when the reality of AGW is in front of them? I suppose that they much pray to their "god" that the scientist are wrong and they are right.
07:41 PM on 01/20/2010
"I have to wonder what these people will be saying in 10 or 20 years time. What will the excuses be when the reality of AGW is in front of them?"

Let us examine this. IPCC science say CO2 sensitivity +mystery positive feedbacks = .03C per year increase. Therefore 10 years would be .3C, 20 is .6C

Would anyone notice a .6C degree difference in average global mean temps? The same temps in past 3 centuries varied about a full 2 to 3C and no calamity occurred.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
hark
01:49 PM on 01/22/2010
No they did not vary like that. And we already have seen momentous environmental changes, and will see more and more as time goes on, as the atmosphere heats up over the coming decades and produces more violent and unpredictable weather, if we continue to do nothing.

Why the deniers are so steadfastly against a clean, renewable, abundant and everlasting energy future is the only "mystery positive feedbacks" around here.

You can put your heads in the sand about global warming if you want, but the facts are that fossil fuels are finite and polluting and incapable of powering the world with enough energy so the 7 billion people can live like the average American. We cannot quadruple the world's production of fossil fuels, and if we could, we'd run out of them that much faster. But the world marches on, and the have-nots are going to demand the same energy as the haves in time, and we better be prepared or we'll be fighting World War III over the last drops of oil.

We must ultimately switch to alternative, renewable energy or there won't be any fossil fuels left to power our world.
10:38 PM on 01/20/2010
I wonder what the people claiming an ice age was upon us 30 years ago are saying now?

Oh yeah, they're saying "Global Warming!"
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
fumes
Midnight Toker
11:15 PM on 01/20/2010
zing!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
hark
01:53 PM on 01/22/2010
What people? This is an another ridiculous denier myth. This nonsense is based on unsubstantiated speculation by a few decades ago, and there was never any scientific credence placed on it. You know that, but you don't care. Just like right wingers on all the facts and evidence twisted and distorted to make a case that can't stand up on its own legs.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ClarcKing
Citizen
06:22 PM on 01/20/2010
Global Warming has not been sufficiently supported by scientific proof. The reality may be the opposite.

The EPA is taking a very hard position that will impact how our government operates. It appears like a do-gooder solution to an non-existent problem. Is it exercising dictatorial power here, impacting the U.S. Constitution, the citizenry and the economy; a component of an economic and population contraction policy?

A few of our representatives should be interested in this EPA decree, it should brought into the public forum for examination.

There is a suspicion of the environmental agenda; it has a smell of population reduction measures carried directly or indirectly.
06:38 PM on 01/20/2010
A a person working towards a masters in environmental science, I must state that you have done little or no real research on the problem.
07:42 PM on 01/20/2010
Interesting.

What do you think about positive IPCC positive feedback science. Rock solid physics? Witchcraft? Something in between?
10:12 PM on 01/20/2010
Is it too late to change your major?
06:40 PM on 01/20/2010
A do-gooder solution? Well there's the problem, you already have a prejudice against people who try to make less of an impact on the environment.

We are each burdened with prejudice; against the poor or the rich, the smart or the slow, the gaunt or the obese. It is natural to develop prejudices. It is noble to rise above them. ~Author Unknown
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
fumes
Midnight Toker
05:55 PM on 01/20/2010
i always liked jim webb..

i like him more now!
03:18 PM on 01/22/2010
Webb was a classmate of mine, but I didn't know him. I wasn't pleased when he became a democrat, but at least he hasn't lost all his common sense.

BTW, he has an engineering undergraduate so he will have a better understanding of the science than all those Democrat and Republican lawyers in congress. .
04:49 PM on 01/20/2010
In the case of Webb there is one once bright political career in the toilet. Better to know now.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:25 PM on 01/20/2010
Except our legislative branch is currently broken.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
Proud member of the reality-based community!
03:56 PM on 01/20/2010
"The past year, 2009, tied as the second warmest year in the 130 years of global
instrumental temperature records, in the surface temperature analysis of the NASA Goddard
Institute for Space Studies (GISS). The Southern Hemisphere set a record as the warmest year
for that half of the world."

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20100115_Temperature2009.pdf
04:28 PM on 01/21/2010
Hmmmm.... NASA / GISS? Aren't these the same people who were implicated with the Hadley CRU for fudging temperature data in the Climategate scandal ? And we are supposed to believe them?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
Proud member of the reality-based community!
04:37 PM on 01/21/2010
No, I believe the CRU was implicated in the CRU emails but only by the nutty deniers. Everyone else took it for just scientists gossiping among themselves, which it was. i like how deniers don't like the temperature trends so you say every temperature measurement body is distrustful or part of some conspiracy. It says a lot about the integrity of your argument.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
hark
01:55 PM on 01/22/2010
No they are not, and there was nobody implicated for fudging data.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BDeddens
02:16 PM on 01/20/2010
I still can't figure out why regulating our industry for the sake of the environment is even an issue. It seems like common sense. American ingenuity had a large part in bringing industry to the rest of the world and thus ingenuity can be applied to the problems we face now in reengineering industrial practices that cause harm to the environment. The alternative is to let the rest of the world do it first, positioning their economies ahead of ours as we struggle to catch up, and thereby making arguments against cap and trade moot. The same America that beat the world to the moon can beat the world again in the "Climate Race". I see no downside to this line of thought.
photo
BBackSoon
Hello, I must be going.
04:46 PM on 01/20/2010
I could not agree more.

Most thinking and caring people believe that we should not allow industry to dump toxins into our water supply and that we should not allow them to pump all kinds of pollutants into the air, why is trying to regulate CO2 emissions not seen the same way?

Because it is too expensive?

Hell everything is expensive. You just have to decide what things are worth the cost.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
fumes
Midnight Toker
04:49 PM on 01/20/2010
bc it's unnecessary..

you see.. CO2's effect is not linear!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MNinWI
12:52 AM on 01/21/2010
There are people with power who have huge investments in making sure we keep things the same. They have exchanged some $$$$ for now for the lives of their children or grandchildren and they don't have the foresight to see it. And then there are the little puppets such as we have read on this blog who have no stake in this other than the fact they will suffer along with the rest of us. Yet they fight like crazy against their own best interests. Pathetic.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung
global mean temperature, obviously INCREASING
02:07 PM on 01/20/2010
Those two "legislators" need a little pressure from us to do the right thing.

Congressional Republicans perceive no need to negotiate on health care reform, and so far they're right. They can gain few if any votes by supporting any public health care option and absolutely increase in their campaign donations from their current list of sponsors, which are overwhelmingly corporate.

But reward is not the only kind of incentive Congressional Democrats can use, and health insurance corporations are not the only donors that are owed favors from Congressional Republicans. They obviously don't want to negotiate, but they can be forced to, by taking away the $70,000,000,000 ($70 Billion) of federal subsidies per year from corporate producers of petroleum, coal, and corn ethanol which also happen to be major corporate donors to Republicans.
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-09-22-fossil-fuel-subsidies-dwarf-clean-energy-subsidies-obama-wants
The time is right, as the House and Senate conclude health care negotiations, to divide the opposition.
http://www.reedyoung.org/politics/general_welfare/medical_care/2010/01/10/

Please sign
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/4/stop-giving-taxpayers-money-to-corporations-who-fight-against-our-right-to-medical-care
04:09 PM on 01/20/2010
RY, you are up to it again.

Let me explain the difference between a subsidy and a tax break.

A tax break only happens when a business creates something of value, makes a profit on it and the government lets them keep some of the profit which they otherwise would have paid in taxes.

A subsidy is when a business makes something that isn't economically practical but government takes money from someone else and gives it to this business in order for it to compete or survive.

In the first case the government is rewarding success. In the second case the government is picking winners.

Now I know you don't want to admit the difference between the two, but it is a stark difference. Tax breaks for traditional carbon energy helps to allow them to continue to reinvest the money in exploration and development of oil with their own money. Wind and solar power are allowed to survive by the use of other people's money.
01:55 PM on 01/20/2010
We know you're from coal country, VIrginia, Senator Webb, but putting a blindfold on regarding climate change is irresponsible.
01:24 PM on 01/20/2010
Go Jim go. Stop the insanity before it starts and save America from the environmental wackos.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dropthedh
Skeptic
02:07 PM on 01/20/2010
Yeah, because we wouldn't want to slow down our industries from topping mountains and logging trees. Before you know it, we Americans won't be able to make good use of our land like the Haitians. You know, that beautifully maintained landscape bereft of trees and topsoil. Oh yeah…never mind.
02:43 PM on 01/20/2010
I fear you're wasting your breath with this particular attempt. Even if you are indeed making perfect sense. Seems that conservative and dialogue are becoming an oxymoron.
01:04 PM on 01/20/2010
We need to disband the EPA and the Department of Energy. We spend hundreds of billions of dollars per year to keep these 2 bloated agencies operating. They serve no purpose and waste taxpayers money. They sit around all day and shuffle papers.

The Department of Energy was created by "progressive" President Richard Nixon to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil. At the time, our importation of foreign oil was roughly 44%. Now, our dependence is 75%!! The agency has failed. Disband them now and save the taxpayer their hard earned money!!!!
photo
TexasDem0
USMC Vietnam vet,Veteran for Peace
01:42 PM on 01/20/2010
Holy crap, Marie.
Richard Nixon was a progressive?
photo
califlefty
Oh how I miss real editors!
02:51 PM on 01/20/2010
As much as it pains me to say it, Richard Nixon was the best thing to happen to the environment since TR.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
phoenixdoglover
My dog loves my progressive treats agenda
04:56 PM on 01/20/2010
Of the total federal budget spending in 2009 of $3.1 trillion, the Department of Energy was $25 billion, and the EPA was $7 billion. Thats about 1% of the total dedicated to these two agencies. Your numbers, and your outrage, are off base.
10:16 PM on 01/20/2010
Or on average, about $250 per taxpayer. I'd rather keep my money.
11:27 AM on 01/21/2010
That is 32 billion dollars going towards nothing.