iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Senate Votes To Limit EPA And Clean Air Act From Regulating Greenhouse Gases

Murkowski

First Posted: 06/10/10 12:59 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 05:45 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- In the absence of congressional action on climate change, the Senate is heading toward a much-watched vote on whether the Obama administration should be allowed to go ahead with regulations curtailing greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and other major polluters.

The Republican-led measure coming to a vote late Thursday would stop the Environmental Protection Agency from carrying out rules to regulate carbon and other greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

At least four Democrats have indicated their support for the legislation, and the vote is expected to be close. The measure will produce the most important vote this year on the climate change issue and is seen as a test of where lawmaker sentiments lie.

The White House on Tuesday said President Barack Obama would be advised to veto the bill if it ever reaches his desk. The bill, it said, "would undermine the administration's efforts to reduce the negative impacts of pollution and the risks associated with environmental catastrophes, like the ongoing BP oil spill."

The sponsor of the legislation, GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski from oil-rich Alaska, said she was "flabbergasted" by the effort to link her bill to the Gulf disaster, saying her intent was to stop bureaucratic usurping of congressional authority.

"You either support the Congress setting the policy on climate change or you support the EPA in their capacity as a regulatory agency setting policy," she said.

Also at issue is how the legislation would affect the Obama administration's tough new emission standards for the auto industry. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said Tuesday that it would "gut EPA's authority in the clean cars program," increasing oil consumption by 455 million barrels over the lifetime of the newly regulated vehicles.

Murkowski challenged that, saying the Transportation Department has for three decades had the ability to set emission standards, and the EPA has a limited role in fuel economy standards.

The senator also argued that the EPA rules would impose too heavy a burden on small businesses and farmers, resulting in job losses. Jackson countered that small sources of pollution will be exempted from the rules, set to go into effect in January, for six years.

"I know that the local Starbucks and the backyard grill are no places to look for meaningful CO2 reductions," she said.

Despite White House prodding and the refocusing on the energy issue with the BP oil spill, it is unclear whether the Senate has the capability to come up with a clean energy bill this year that can muster the 60 votes needed for passage.

In that light, said Sarah Saylor, senior legislative representative of the environmental group Earthjustice, Thursday's vote is "a distraction from the real task at hand before the Senate to find a way forward toward a sustainable and prosperous clean-energy future."

Second, she said, "it is a test," showing which senators are on the side of the fossil fuel industry.

But Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller from the coal state of West Virginia, said Tuesday he was siding with Murkowski because "I believe we must send a strong message that the fate of West Virginia's economy, our manufacturing industries and our workers should not be solely in the hands of EPA."

The EPA actions grew out of a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases could be regulated under the Clean Air Act if it were shown that such gases endanger health.

Determining that global warming did pose a long-term danger to health, the EPA has issued standards requiring large polluters to reduce the amounts of greenhouse gases they release into the air.

---

The bill is S.J. Res. 26

Online:

Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov .

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

WASHINGTON (AP) -- In the absence of congressional action on climate change, the Senate is heading toward a much-watched vote on whether the Obama administration should be allowed to go ahead with reg...
WASHINGTON (AP) -- In the absence of congressional action on climate change, the Senate is heading toward a much-watched vote on whether the Obama administration should be allowed to go ahead with reg...
Filed by Travis Donovan  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 80
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
fourtruth
9th Ammendment, Bill of Rights
08:00 PM on 06/10/2010
Hey folks, help me out please. About 1/2 of my posts are in "moderation". I can't tell what I am triggering to cause that.

Next to "Post a Comment" is "Our moderators screen these comments before they are published". But obvioulsy not all, as 1/2 ar going through.
01:05 PM on 06/11/2010
Don't panic. Even the ones that get through can take quite a while.

Often it depends on what the mawds had for breakfast.
fourtruth
9th Ammendment, Bill of Rights
07:57 PM on 06/10/2010
An ice age won't decrease humans? Another ice age, even many more ice ages are inevitable and natural, perhaps. This current situation is not earth’s natural balancing act though; this appears to be more manmade. So that is why I said "perhaps".

I mean, if we can make global warming happen and then the inevitable ice age happens, why can't we cause it not to happen? Or at least decrese it enough so we CAN live through it.

Sun spots, aligning of planets, 2012, asteroids - all another story entirely. All with "perhaps" different outcomes depending on what we can learn and do with technology, etc.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:27 PM on 06/11/2010
"I mean, if we can make global warming happen and then the inevitable ice age happens, why can't we cause it not to happen?"

Stay in school.
fourtruth
9th Ammendment, Bill of Rights
01:49 PM on 06/11/2010
Maybe you have missed some news, humans now fly - even been to the moon! “Stay in school”, um, well, excuse me but how childish.

So you do not think humans are contributing excessively to the increase of Co2, or that we are chopping down rain forests faster than they can grow, or that the ocean is rising. Tell that to the island people who are evacuating their ancestral island because rising sea levels are infiltrating all their farm land and fresh water system (no link, can't remember the name of the island either).

Do you think that the current Co2, regardless of what is causing it, is not going result in the same results it has for eons, i.e. a warming spell and then an ice age? Or maybe you are a "bible" big bang theorist - dinosaurs and all?

I can tell you for a fact that the pollution is affecting this human. I only have asthma when the air pollution is high.
07:01 PM on 06/10/2010
Mark my word, this is just the beginning of 0bama's efforts to wreck our economy. This Cap and Trade legislation together with the EPA trying to mandate CO2 emissions will combine destructively with the expiration of the Bush tax cut that our S0cialist President will permit. If we let that happen, the economy will tank to a level worse than the extremes of the 1970s. Fortunately, the American people are wiser than that given 0bama's approval ratings that are now in the low forties. This cap and trade legislation must be crushed into oblivion and the EPA must be reigned in. I am looking forward to a massive purging of radicals and s0cialists from our congress this November. Those people are a threat to our society than any foreign power we face today.
09:34 PM on 06/10/2010
well, if he's motivated solely by anevil plan to wreck our ecomony, you might want to modify that with "what's left of our economy after Pesident Bush and the Republicans got through with it". Our ruined economy is not Obama's doing. It crashed before any bail outs and before Obama took office.

Nice try, though.
12:48 PM on 06/11/2010
You blaming Bush for our present economic problems after he has been out of office for about a year and a half is just a convenient excuse for 0bama's failing. Recall that his stimulus bill promised us unemployment levels no higher than 8 percent. His stimulus is now a proven failure. Virtually no new jobs have been created and we have now learned that the stimulus funds have been squandered to fill budget gaps to pay overpaid state union workers that are more interested in there own welfare rather than the public well being. When the reality of his failure hits in 2012 your c0mrade 0bama will crash and burn harder than Carter did in 1979.
04:36 PM on 06/10/2010
" 'I believe we must send a strong message that the fate of West Virginia's economy, our manufacturing industries and our workers should not be solely in the hands of EPA.' "

Senator Rockefeller, I would generally agree with your assessment. However, given that you and your Congressional brethren have conspicuously failed to produce any meaningful climate change legislation, it becomes incumbent on the EPA to do its job: namely, regulate industries that contribute to the polution and desolation of our environment.

Your voting in FAVOR of this legislation sends a very clear signal that the lessons from disaster currently unfolding in the Gulf have not had much impact on you.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:11 PM on 06/11/2010
So you are for the EPA, a federal regulatory agency of unelected bureaucrats, rendering the congress powerless to act in the best interest of their constituents?

I don't think you understand politics or the danger of granting far reaching authority to unelected officials as well as you think you do.

By the way, much like morality you cannot legislate climate change. Nature is what it is and we exist according to its rules, not the other way around.
fourtruth
9th Ammendment, Bill of Rights
02:04 PM on 06/11/2010
"By the way, much like morality you cannot legislate climate change. Nature is what it is and we exist according to its rules, not the other way around."

Stay in school.

There have been a few advances that you might have missed, like, um, I don't know - polio vacinations, electricity, computers - just a few.

Agree with your second paragraph. But how would you do it otherwise? Are you willing to freely have lead in paint or toluene in your water for example? If not, how would you regulate that?

I don't fully agree or disagree with your first paragraph. What group of indivuduals under what agency or group would do this job? And that they render congress "powerless" is a little bit of a broad brush stroke - depends on what your personal motives or gains are. But, yes sometimes they do just that - for example for a time there was a President who had them doctor up their science to serve the self entitlment of a few at the expense of society. Unfortunalty Congress hands were tied to stop this at the time.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Exusian
Nature bats last
03:17 PM on 06/10/2010
NASA GISS global combined land-surface instrument temperature anomaly data shows May 2010 is tied at +.63C with May 1998 for the warmest May anomaly in the instrument record, while March-April-May 2010 is by far the warmest such period at +.73C. The next closest was 2002 at +.65C.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

NASA GISS land met station temperature anomaly data shows May 2010 as the warmest May anomaly at +.83C, while March-April-May 2010 is at +.90 -- almost a full degree above the baseline average.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt

NOAA's State of the Climate Global Analysis[/url] for May 2010 should be out any day now.
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2010&month=4&submitted=Get+Report

Meanwhile, NSIDC
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
IARC-JAXA
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png
and UBremen
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/ice_ext_n.png
all show 2010 Arctic ice extent to be decreasing faster than in any year in the satellite record (since 1979), including 2007.

It's early yet, but 2010 is already shredding the denialsphere meme of global cooling, not that it will cause the willfully ignorant to stop using it, mind you.
03:47 PM on 06/10/2010
The problem is that you are using the same "this year is hot" vs. "this year is cold" logic to present your case that the denialists do. We are dealing with statistical trend lines here. Any specific moment/year in time isn't really indicative of nothing when looked at outside the entire dataset - nor is picking extreme data points out at random. It isn't valid when the denialists do it, it isn't valid when the true believers do it.

Global warming is an obvious fact ... but this argument in favor of this idea is kind of tripe.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Exusian
Nature bats last
04:11 PM on 06/10/2010
On the contrary, kgb, by pointing to the full data set I am placing 2010 in the context of a continuing rising trend in global mean temperature that has seen each of the last 3 decades succeed the previous decade as the warmest in the record, and that arctic sea ice mass has been in decline for the last 30 years as well.

In short, your criticism that I focused on a single year misses the mark entirely.
lightnessandjoy
Is micro-bio a new disease?
02:03 PM on 06/10/2010
Well Senator Big Oil, the Congress has failed to regulate greenhouse gases thereby forfeiting its authority to the EPA. If you want Congress to set policy, then get to work and pass some legislation regulating greenhouse gases. I'm just happy there is at least one government agency trying to protect my health and the health of the planet.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:23 PM on 06/11/2010
You still believe that the EPA, a bureaucratic federal regulatory agency incapable of love, has your best interest at heart?

You are comfortable with our Congress abdicating its authority to a federal regulatory agency comprised of unelected officials?

When the cost of energy increases by 30-80% and the cost of all manufactured products increases by 10-20%, you will wish you were able to vote the EPA out of office.

Do you really think the "evil manufacturers" are going to absorb the costs imposed by a climate bill?

Think again, they will pass the cost on to consumers.

You really should wake up.
photo
shocktreatment
Just barely standing it
09:32 PM on 06/11/2010
"...Do you really think the "evil manufacturers" are going to absorb the costs imposed by a climate bill?

Think again, they will pass the cost on to consumers..."

A fundamental misunderstanding of the cap-&-trade mechanism. That mechanism has produced overwhelming success already, and continues to deliver.

The virtual end of acid rain remains the greatest environmental/market success ever. A model C&T program.
The 25 year drawdown to the ban on lead in gas was essentially a cap and trade program.
California's RECLAIM program http://www.aqmd.gov/reclaim/reclaim.html
The EU Emissions Trading System has cut Europe’s carbon footprint to 50% of the US'
Ozone. Manufacturers affected by the need to phase out CFCs and halons were put in a cap and trade system in order to meet the Montreal Protocol goals. Those goals were met, the costs were way less than anticipated.

Have a look here:

http://climatechange.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2010/05/20/the-facts-of-cap-and-trade/

All these (faux)freemarketers are getting exactly what they talk about, only they haven't taken the time to figure it out.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
KarlaElisa
The atmosphere is Toxic
01:52 PM on 06/10/2010
I understand the necessity of the 'Cap' part, but can someone please explain what the benefit of the 'Trade' part will be to anyone that ISN'T a big business or on Wall Street?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Forester
Overeducated woods worker.
02:40 PM on 06/10/2010
Why would you care if Wall Street found a a way to market carbon futures that results in a net reduction in GHG emissions? This same market approach works quite well for conservation easements.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
KarlaElisa
The atmosphere is Toxic
06:19 PM on 06/10/2010
Maybe because after all we've just come thru I don't trust them and they have this way of creating bust and boom cycles that only benefit them. Read 'The Great American Bubble Machine' by Matt Taibi of Rolling Stone. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/12697/64796
photo
shocktreatment
Just barely standing it
09:12 PM on 06/11/2010
"...can someone please explain what the benefit of the 'Trade' part will be to anyone that ISN'T a big business or on Wall Street?"

Yes, K.E. Here goes, the trade part funds the pollution-reducing-measures of the least polluting players in an industry using money from the"most polluters", those competitors who continue with the particular pollutant. Otherwise the funding for changeover comes from taxpayers.

What the uninformed are missing, is that cap-&-trade programs have already worked, and continue to work. For example: The EU Emissions Trading program has been going for two years now, and influenced metal, paper, glass and ceramics production, as well as oil and coal Their paper industry cut its emissions close to 50%.

Here in the States, LA's RECLAIM cap-and-trade program, California’s South Coast Air Quality Management District has reduced NOx emissions 60% and SOx emissions 50%. The greatest triumph of market and environment cooperation ended acid rain. Sulphur dioxide emissions were capped, it went down yearly. The coal plants traded with themselves, the EPA administered the program. Acid rain is history, and it was cheaper than expected to stop polluting. SO2 emissions from the power industry were reduced by 50% over the 20 years of the program. A huge success.

The carbon tax alternative would allow those who can afford it to keep polluting as much as they want.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jim281
Just slightly to the left of John Lennon
01:42 PM on 06/10/2010
What have we here? Don't let any comments slip thru??
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jim281
Just slightly to the left of John Lennon
01:39 PM on 06/10/2010
Absolutely DISGUSTING!

So then, West VA will have a 'strong economy' when the world's eco-systems collapse? Good for them. @ssholes!!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:37 PM on 06/11/2010
You'll be pleased to know that Congress has abdicated its authority in this regard to a federal regulatory agency of unelected officials.

Let's hope the EPA isn't comprised of the aspiring despots that I believe it is. Otherwise, we will have no means of ridding ourselves of the impending regulations.
photo
shocktreatment
Just barely standing it
09:49 PM on 06/12/2010
"...Congress has abdicated its authority in this regard..."

And in other regards, abdicated/delegated authority to the
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
Export-Import Bank
Federal Communications Commission
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Federal Trade Commission
General Services Administration
National Labor Relations Board
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Social Security Administration
Securities and Exchange Commission
and a whole host of other independent agencies and government corporations all created by Congress or by Executive order to deal with issues that go beyond the scope of ordinary legislation.

Something that's been done for quite awhile now. Make no mistake, Congress retains its authority, it just takes a majority to exercise it, thus occasionally preventing bought and paid for industry lackies like Murkowski from selling out all of us in the name of some "free market" fairy tale. Not often enough, but every now and then--
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GuiltD
01:28 PM on 06/10/2010
To clean the oil spill : its simple. Use hay.
01:42 PM on 06/10/2010
How much hay you got?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GuiltD
02:45 PM on 06/10/2010
Tons. All you do is take a huge bowl of water. Put oil in it, and then mix in hay. Stir. Then net the hay out of the water and the water is totally clear.
fourtruth
9th Ammendment, Bill of Rights
07:43 PM on 06/10/2010
I saw that on the news last night. Sounds like a good idea on the surface. BP is saying that would be a worse mess because what would they do with all that contaminated hay? Pile it anywhere and it will pollute. Burn it and it will pollute. I would say put it in their own living rooms, but that would just end up polluting more earth too.

I say go with Kevin Costner, at least!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dr Juan
We built America without BO
01:24 PM on 06/10/2010
Global warming is not related to health except by those that want to profit from regulating CO2.

Excess CO2 is self correcting because plant growth speeds up. In fact heaters in green houses are generally not vented out side so that plant growth is accelerated by the higher level of CO2 achieved insin side.

We have some big sun spot bursts comming up - lets see what that does to the climate
01:45 PM on 06/10/2010
The plants have had over a century to get started on this, yet CO2 levels continue to rise.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GuiltD
02:50 PM on 06/10/2010
Earth has always been able to balance CO2 levels naturally except the more rainforests we chop down, the balance decreases. But connecting decreasing CO2 levels to decreasing humans is absolutely disgusting ( Billionaire globalists such as Bill Gates at Ted conference, and Al Gore)
lightnessandjoy
Is micro-bio a new disease?
02:05 PM on 06/10/2010
Don't know why you call yourself "Dr", but science certainly isn't your strong point. Keep trying.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GuiltD
02:46 PM on 06/10/2010
Come up with a rebuttal then.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
awarg
01:21 PM on 06/10/2010
Whenever a repuke wants to change the laws, they always bring up "small businesses will be affected". When the hell did they start caring about small business? She's the same woman who is against putting a cap on oil company's paying for damages that they've caused. As we read this, she's doing just that in Washington. She and people who think like that should be removed from Washington. Hey, teabaggers, when you start thinking this way, the dems will start backing you.
01:56 PM on 06/10/2010
There are big differences between Multi-National Mega-Corps and mom-and-pops.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
oliv0128
01:21 PM on 06/10/2010
So...in the absence of a climate bill, we're actually going to take a step backwards? These people are deranged. Will someone please fix Congress? Now!?
01:57 PM on 06/10/2010
Quit hoping for salvation and run for office.
01:19 PM on 06/10/2010
Absolutely, regulate small sources. One Starbucks, 10 million of them, a big deal. It's those small sources that add up. Look at your own finances. Companies love to nickel and dime their customers, and then people wonder why they have no money.
02:04 PM on 06/10/2010
"regulate small sources. One Starbucks, 10 million of them, a big deal"
That means cars too. Oh yeah, it also means people. Still got your car? Still breathing?

Carbon caps will have the result of disenfranchising the poor, forever!

'The buy-in at this table is $X'

If you really believe that it was China who derailed Copenhagen, snap out of it; it was the poor nations who were promised loans if they didn't pollute, and they've seen that BS before from the IMF, WTO, etc.