House Republicans Target EPA With Bills That Would Cripple Obama's Global Warming Agenda

WASHINGTON — House Republicans wasted no time Thursday in trying to block the Obama administration from acting to stem global warming. On their second day in power, GOP lawmakers introduced several bills that would hamstring the Environmental Protection Agency from moving forward with regulations to reduce heat-trapping pollution from factories and other sources that they say contributes to global warming.

The bills are part of an effort by House Republicans to reverse what they consider job-killing policies of the administration. The bills introduced by Rep. Ted Poe of Texas, Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee and Rep. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia would stymie the EPA in different ways.

Poe's measure would prohibit the EPA from using any money to implement or enforce regulations to impose a limit on global warming gases. Blackburn's bill would change the Clean Air Act so the EPA could no longer use the law to control greenhouse gases.

A 2007 Supreme Court decision said the EPA had the authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other global warming gases under the statute.

Capito's measure would delay for two years any effort by the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act.

In a statement, Capito called the EPA's actions a power grab that would have devastating effects on the economy.

"Without congressional action to say otherwise, the EPA will continue to dismantle energy and manufacturing industries through regulation," she said.

Meanwhile, a top Democrat in the Senate on environmental issues, Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, said Thursday she would use every tool to block the Republicans efforts and ensure that the EPA was allowed to follow the law.

A bill that would have placed a limit on heat-trapping gases died in the Senate last year, after it passed the then Democratic-led House. Boxer said there are no plans to pursue another one because there are not enough votes.

Comments

[MacHuffP]

10:45 PM on 02/11/2011

The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Lisa Jackson is testifying before a Congressional panel and clearly proves how inept and ill-informed she is (and she a chemical engineer by education).

The EPA is an important organization, but stern and unreasonable regulations are detrimental to the USA economy.

http://vodpod.com/watch/4668774-congressman-shimkus-questions-epa-administrator-jackson Congressman Shimkus Questions EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson

[gevan]

12:16 AM on 01/16/2011

It was the Republican Whitman who told the workers at the WTC site and the general population of lower Manhattan that the air was just fine after 9/11. It is GOP policy that the world can go suck air as if the levels of oxygen at 20,000+ ft. would be adequate for all living organisms. Y'all know that "God will provide" right?
The idea that seven billion of one organism armed with electrical generation and fires galore (internal or external combustion) could have a greater impact than less that two billion who hadn't mastered anything more advanced than horse or water power did is beyond their comprehension.

[indigenous youth08]

01:11 AM on 01/11/2011

Our number #1 problem is water conservation!!!! Within this century fresh water is expected to be non-existent. You can't deny this, esp. those of you who believe global warming is a hoax.

[buckeyedave]

08:00 PM on 01/10/2011

Global warming is a tough sell in the northern hemisphere right now as most of it is engulfed in one of the coldest winters on record.

[gallon]

09:12 PM on 01/10/2011

Has to do with the Milankovitch cycles which are a part of climate theory. Also known as winter at this time of year.

[Shan Wells]

01:30 AM on 01/11/2011

Global warming does not mean now, nor has it ever meant, that everything gets hotter. Colder, dryer, wetter,warmer, these are all effects of climate destabilization and that has always been a part of the theory.

[SoCalHotOne]

02:16 AM on 01/11/2011

So what exactly can ever prove this theory wrong?

[Publicola]

11:09 AM on 01/11/2011

SoCalWarmer: "So what exactly can ever prove this theory wrong?"

Several things. For example a scientifically-significant cooling of the troposphere and/or warming of the stratosphere (after controlling for confounding factors such as changes in insolation) would prove the theory wrong. Neither has happened however, just as other things that can prove the theory wrong have not happened either.

[ClimateHawk]

07:20 PM on 01/10/2011

Speaking of the Arctic, December satellite observations are in: http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20110105_Figure3.png

Here comes the Blob! ... or something equally unfriendly.

[logicanada]

07:10 PM on 01/10/2011

You know, if it gets too warm in the arctic The Blob will re-animate and cause a sequel.

[cjohnsonla]

03:13 PM on 01/10/2011

• NASAhttp://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

“Most scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect"

• NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/ocp2009/ocp2009-ccsp.htm

“... most of the global warming experienced in the past few decades is very likely due to the observed increase in greenhouse gas concentrations from human activities.”

• AGU (American Geophysica l Union)
http://www.agu.org/outreach/science_policy/positions/climate _change2008.shtml

“The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system ... are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.”

• AMS (American Meteorolog ical Society)
http://ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html

“…there is adequate evidence from observations and interpretations of climate simulations to conclude that the atmosphere , ocean, and land surface are warming; that humans have significantly contributed to this change; and that further climate change will continue to have important impacts on human societies, on economies, on ecosystems , and on wildlife through the 21st century and beyond.”

[MacHuffP]

09:08 PM on 01/09/2011

I have had these discussions before.

Please, do not blame Democrats, Republicans, liberals, tea party, etc.; do your homework.

All this have nothing to do with politics. This is science. The independent world scientists should accept the simple fact, that climate change does happen, but very little affected by humans and their industries.

The pictures of polar bears on melting ice, as well as pictures of the locals, throwing snowballs in Sahara Desert are not the serious proof of anything; all is much more complicated.

Of course, reasonable regulations shall be introduced, without destroying our economy.
Any kind of pollution is not acceptable and has to be addressed.

The Father of "Global warming" Al Gore said, that it is not political, but moral issue.

I only don't get, how a huge inorganic matter, a sphere almost eight thousand miles in diameter, with over 80% of mass having temperature above iron melting point, has any morals.

On the other hand, the Earth is a tiny part of the Solar system and the tiniest part of our Galaxy.

I have much info on the topic, but to simplify the matter, I pasted "global warming facts and myths' into the Bing.com search.

Take your pick.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=global+warming+facts+and+myths&go=&form=QBRE&qs=n&sk=&sc=1-30

[ClimateHawk]

10:11 AM on 01/10/2011

Be sure to also look at: www.skepticalscience.com

Not all sites are created equal.

[MacHuffP]

11:53 PM on 01/13/2011

Dear ClimateHawk,

A good link. They list the Sun as the first of 141 arguments. By the way, some climatologists predicted a few weeks ago, that this year would be the year of significantly increased Sun activities, which would trump the greenhouse effect.

Most of the 141 arguments are just words without any support. My search link for "global warming facts and myths" gave 2,650,000 results. All so complicated.

Wind power does have a potential, but it will not cover all energy needs, far from it.

Again, some of the climate change reasons - carbon dioxide emissions, volcanoes, earthquake­s, magnetic storms, asteroids, meteorites­, comets, galaxies’ movement, Sun activity, Earth's tectonic plates movement, studied by Al Gore’s Professor Revelle but ignored by Al Gore.

Humans with all their industries do contribute, but not much, and all this is not a political issue; this is nature and science.

Thank you for a meaningful piece of info. Some people just say "wrong", etc. or even worse, call names; not very convincing argument.

Regards

[Publicola]

01:13 PM on 01/15/2011

MacHuffP: "some climatolog­ists predicted a few weeks ago, that this year would be the year of significan­tly increased Sun activities­, which would trump the greenhouse effect."

That statement, while possibly correct in the sense that "some climatolog­ists predict" it, is misleading at best. Cite your source.

MacHuffP: "Most of the 141 arguments are just words without any support."

Did you even bother to read what is at that site? In fact skepti­calscience­.com backs up most if not all of their arguments with plenty of citations from published scientific literature.

MacHuffP: "My search link for "global warming facts and myths" gave 2,650,000 results. All so complicate­d."

Right. Which in part why a sufficient scientific education is required to scientifically evaluate much of what is fact and what is disinformation on this subject.

MacHuffP: "Again, some of the climate change reasons - carbon dioxide emissions, volcanoes, earthquake­­s, magnetic storms, asteroids, meteorites­­, comets, galaxies’ movement, Sun activity, Earth's tectonic plates movement"

You've repeatedly neglected to include one of the primary drivers of climate change - changes in the Earth's orbit. (And much of what you list is of negligible importance here at best.)

In any event with respect to global warming over recent decades all but increased greenhouse gas emissions have been scientifically ruled out as being able to explain that said recent warming.

[chrisd3]

11:23 AM on 01/10/2011

Al Gore is not by ANY stretch of the imagination "the father of global warming." I'm sorry, but your saying this instantly costs you any credibility you might otherwise have had.

[Publicola]

11:10 AM on 01/11/2011

"Al Gore is not by ANY stretch of the imaginatio­n "the father of global warming.""

He's right, you know.

[MacHuffP]

11:04 PM on 01/13/2011

Dear chrisd3

Many climatologists call Reid Bryson the father of climatology. Professor (emeritus) Bryson calls man-made global warming absurd. I disagree; humans do contribute, but insignificantly.

Luke Howard (1772 – 1864) British chemist and meteorologist was called the Father of urban climatology.

And there are a few more "Fathers", like James Hansen of NASA.
If you have more info, please educate me.

I called Al Gore the father of MAN-MADE global warming theory.
Please correct me if I wrong.

Regards

[MacHuffP]

08:12 PM on 01/09/2011

Climate change reasons - carbon dioxide emissions, volcanoes, earthquakes, magnetic storms.

Also - asteroids, meteorites, comets, galaxies’ movement, Sun activity, Earth's tectonic plates movement, studied by Al Gore’s Professor Revelle but ignored by Al Gore.

Because of media, academia and entertainers, over 40% of Americans believe in hype, that humans cause global warming.

Numbers don't lie.

Earth crust - 3 to 31 miles thick (0.3% of Earth radius); mantle -1,800 miles thick rocky shell, 70% of Earth's volume. Mantle T=900°C to 4,000 °C at the core.
Pressure in the mantle prevents melting; it is solid jelly of melted iron and rock.

Temperature on the Sun surface - 5500 to 6000 °C.
Sun volume - 1,295,029 times Earth volume.

Anthropogenic contribution to "greenhouse effect” is due to H2O vapor, much less - CO2, CH4, etc.
Human activity contributes less than 1%.

But emissions standards for power plants, cars, etc. shall not be ignored.

However, over strict standards would not help our Planet.
China, India, etc. would add to pollution. Their economy would grow, ours - diminish.

Nobody supports air pollution, but 95% of gas causing the "greenhouse effect” is H2O vapor from the rivers, oceans, rains, etc.

Global warming “solutions” would ruin American industry, economy and the lifestyle, cost workers their jobs, lead to gas and electricity rate hikes, send American jobs overseas and jeopardize our national security.

Al Gore's idea still promoted, despite of multiple pieces of info proving it's intangible nature.

The "global warming agenda" must be ceased completely

[gallon]

12:35 PM on 01/10/2011

Quite a disjointed rant there MacHuffP.

[MacHuffP]

02:33 PM on 01/14/2011

Dear gallon,

What you call "a disjointed rant" is a very humble and small part of compilation from multiple books, articles, links, lectures, etc.

But I thank you for your reply.
Regards

[Publicola]

12:46 PM on 01/15/2011

Another science denier who evidently doesn't understand that unlike "dry" greenhouse gases including CO2, water vapor does not and cannot drive global warming.

Yawn.

[MacHuffP]

08:52 PM on 01/19/2011

Dear Publicola,

Thank you for calling me a denier.
This is a very fashionable and popular word nowadays.

I am not a climatologist and I deny absolutely nothing.
I can understand your frustration, though.

I have been in your shoes, listening to ignorant people, teaching me how to do my business.
I am just referring to some information from different sources.

Regards

[Publicola]

01:39 PM on 01/20/2011

Dear MacHuffP,

MacHuffP: "Thank you for calling me a denier.
This is a very fashionabl­e and popular word nowadays."

It is also accurate with respect to those who assert in various ways, as you do, that "humans do contribute to the client change, but very insignific­­­antly".

MacHuffP: "I am not a climatolog­ist and I deny absolutely nothing."

Yes, you deny that humans signific­­­antly contribute to client change. You have done so here repeatedly.

And now you are denying that you deny anything, your own words right here directly demonstrating the contrary notwithstanding.

MacHuffP: "I am just referring to some informatio­n from different sources."

No, you are also denying that humans signific­­­antly contribute to client change.

Also, evolution deniers too say they are "referring to some informatio­n from different sources," which of course they do. And again:

You say that you "of course" believe that evolution is real, and yet there are "many scientists disagree with your opinion." Why do you discount their minority on the issue?

Please answer; thanks.

Regards

[SoCalHotOne]

01:44 PM on 01/09/2011

There is no global warming. The whole thing is a big hoax. So the best thing really is to get rid of the entire "global warming agenda", not just cripple it.

[Rex Allen]

04:49 PM on 01/09/2011

I agree with you 100%. A big hoax that is financially killing this country. I wish the urbanites would wake up and smell the coffee. It's all about control, and when our entire wealth is givin to the middle east in the form of $100/barrel crude, and all hell breaks loose, the urbanites will be the first to tuck tail and run..

[SoCalHotOne]

08:23 PM on 01/09/2011

A scientific theory that was well proven and correct would stand on it's own. But the global warming hoax continues because it has propaganda budget topping $1 Billion a year.

http://climatequotes.com/2011/01/08/how-can-climate-scientists-spend-so-much-money/

[Publicola]

11:16 AM on 01/11/2011

SoCalWarmer: "A scientific theory that was well proven..."

As anyone who is functionally literate in science knows, scientific theories are never "proven" - "well" or otherwise. They are instead supported or undermined by scientific evidence.

[ClimateHawk]

10:12 AM on 01/10/2011

Really? And how do you know that?

[dragonmaster]

06:36 AM on 01/09/2011

The Republican Party is as myopic regarding Anthropogenic global warming as it was with health care.

The GOP-Tea Party members from what I have read, have absolutely no understanding of what the Green house effect is. I have heard terms used for the planets warming, being caused by 'Large Solar Flares' to 'Water Vapor' etc.

If these republicans-Tea Party Dunces would actually enlighten their primitive brains they would soon learn that throughout earths history, the amount of carbon in the atmosphere has predicated global temperatures.

Before fossil fuels where burned by humans- in Geologic History, carbon was released by various natural forces within the earth, through warming in the ocean and tectonic forces (the moving of continents)

The PETM or Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum was associated with rapid (in geological terms) global warming, profound changes in marine and terrestrial ecosystems, and major perturbations in the carbon cycle. This occurred over 50 million years ago. Average global temperatures increased by ~6°C (11°F) within about 20,000 years.

What is happening now with carbon is happening at a rate of 10 times the PETM! So we are seeing carbon rise at a rate of 100ppm or more every 50-100 years- which is astounding in geologic terms.

As the republican party dithers, denies, and protects its special interests- the planet is warming at a rate never before known. When Karl Rove said the 'climate was gone' for once he was right.

[SoCalHotOne]

01:47 PM on 01/09/2011

"the planet is warming at a rate never before known."

Actually, it's that the temperature records are being manipulated at a rate never before known.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/26/giss-upwards-and-upwards/

[dragonmaster]

05:03 PM on 01/09/2011

Steve Goddard has been discredited by everyone in the scientific community with any credibility - why send me his junk>?

[lbsaltzman]

12:19 AM on 01/10/2011

All good points you are making. I hope the national leaders and the corporate leaders wake up in time. I notice the usual scientifically illiterate folksa re trying to refute your points. Their ignorance and the ignorance of the vast majority of Republicans in Congress may well doom civilization. If we are saved I fear it will be by the efforts of other countries. By the time the U.S. wakes up our empire and nation may well be doomed.

[Robco1]

12:58 PM on 01/12/2011

Funny how the denialists come out of the woodwork, isn't it. Maybe The Guardian's George Monbiot has a point in this piece: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2010/12/13/reclaim-the-cyber-commons/

From online trolling and funding shills like Steven Goddard, to buying off politicans, the fossil fuel lobby is pulling out all the stops to subvert our political system in order to preserve their market position. This kind of disinformation campaign hates one thing: daylight. The best way to fight back? Call out their lies and link them to the truth.

[FormerReaganite]

01:16 AM on 01/09/2011

Let's just get rid of job-killing Republicans

[FormerReaganite]

01:15 AM on 01/09/2011

By cutting pollution regulations, they will actually CUT jobs too! Think of all the air-quality scientists, field workers, engineers, as well as manufacturers of anti-pollution equipment, installers of such, maintanence personell, and so on, who will not have a job, if pollution controls are not implemented.

Bottom line:
CUTTING POLLUTION REGULATIONS WILL COST A LOT OF HIGH-PAYING JOBS

[FormerReaganite]

01:09 AM on 01/09/2011

The GOP is a gang of mobsters:
Republimafialicans

[youvebinfarteen]

11:34 AM on 01/08/2011

"House Republicans Target EPA With Bills That Would Cripple Obama's Global Warming Agenda"

It's not just President Obama's Global Warming Agenda, it's the rest the rest of the World's Global Warming Agenda too. However, as usual, the GOP and who they represent are pimple on the Butt of the rest of the World.

[FormerReaganite]

12:58 AM on 01/09/2011

They ARE a "are pimple on the Butt of the rest of the World."

That's why Boehner is always standing (he can't sit down - ouch!)