iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

GOP EPA Ban Rejected By Senate Democrats

Epa Ban

By DINA CAPPIELLO   04/ 6/11 08:10 PM ET   AP

WASHINGTON -- Senate Democrats on Wednesday defeated a Republican effort to ban the Environmental Protection Agency from controlling the gases blamed for global warming.

Republicans still planned to pass an identical bill in the House on Thursday, even though it has little chance of becoming law.

In a 50-50 vote, the Senate rejected a measure by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma that would have repealed a 2009 finding by federal scientists that climate change caused by greenhouse gases endangers human health and would have prevented the agency from using existing law to regulate heat-trapping pollution. The amendment – to a small-business bill – needed 60 votes to pass.

Only four Democrats – Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Ben Nelson of Nebraska – supported the McConnell bid. One Republican, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, voted against it.

Meanwhile, the Republican-controlled House is expected to pass an identical bill Thursday, but the White House has threatened a veto any bill that reaches the president's desk. The House voted earlier this year to prohibit the EPA from spending any money to regulate greenhouse gases as part of a spending bill for the next six months. It is part of negotiations among the White House, Senate Democrats and House Republicans to keep the government running.

Senate Democrats proposed Wednesday less aggressive prohibitions on the EPA that would have delayed regulations for two years, exempted certain industries, or both. But the most votes any of the three alternatives received was 12. Republicans nearly unanimously voted against them, and so did most Democrats.

In a statement Wednesday night, White House press secretary Jay Carney said the administration was "encouraged" by the Senate's actions to defend the EPA "by rejecting efforts to roll back EPA's common-sense steps to safeguard Americans from harmful pollution."

But critics of the administration's action on global warming looked at the outcome in a different light, saying that a majority of senators in some way voted to restrict the EPA's regulation of heat-trapping gases.

"When all is said and done, a bipartisan majority in the Senate issued a sobering message to EPA ... suggesting it's time to reverse course and put Congress back in charge of America's energy policy," Inhofe said in a statement.

Democrats focused their arguments on what they said was an unprecedented reversal by Congress of a scientific finding.

"The fact is, why should we play doctor? I'm too humble to repeal science," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., taking the position of many Democrats against the McConnell amendment's overturning of a finding by the EPA that greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare. EPA scientists had made the same conclusion under President George W. Bush, but the White House never acted on the recommendation.

Republicans, in hours of debate Wednesday, painted EPA's regulations as an overreach of government that will harm the economy and lead to job losses and must be stopped. They stressed that their efforts to hamstring the agency in the case of global warming would not affect other parts of the Clean Air Act that protect people from toxic and lung-damaging pollutants.

"This legislation will remove the biggest regulatory threat to the American economy," said Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., the chairman of House Energy and Commerce Committee and chief sponsor of the House bill. "This is a threat imposed not by Congress, but entirely by the Obama Environmental Protection Agency."

Senate Republicans argued the lesser measures protected a handful of Democrats who could be vulnerable in 2012 elections, but would do little to protect American jobs and electricity costs in the long run. They also pointed out, as the EPA has acknowledged, that controlling greenhouse gases in the United States would do little to reduce the temperature of the planet, since other countries are not addressing the problem.

"Democrats themselves recognize the dangers of these EPA regulations," McConnell said Wednesday. "Yet instead of voting for the one amendment that solves the problem, they're hiding behind sham amendments designed to give them political cover."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

WASHINGTON -- Senate Democrats on Wednesday defeated a Republican effort to ban the Environmental Protection Agency from controlling the gases blamed for global warming. Republicans still planned to ...
WASHINGTON -- Senate Democrats on Wednesday defeated a Republican effort to ban the Environmental Protection Agency from controlling the gases blamed for global warming. Republicans still planned to ...
Filed by Joanna Zelman  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,466
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (28 total)
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
09:33 AM on 04/17/2011
I can see 2012 from my house. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHlWdZgJcRY&feature=player_embedded
photo
rodjard
I Update my brain frequently
07:15 AM on 04/12/2011
Every politition who votes against subsidies to oil companies
should wear a GREEN BUTTON so we know who to vote for.
photo
rodjard
I Update my brain frequently
07:12 AM on 04/12/2011
Nothing has been acomplished as long as oil companies
are getting subsidies.
09:34 AM on 04/17/2011
Name ONE oil company that gets money from the government?
09:35 AM on 04/17/2011
I have to qualify that question! Name one that isn't in BRAZIL getting loan money from Obama.
photo
FormerReaganite
Government Regulations Save Lives
03:48 AM on 04/11/2011
Sen James Inhofe

* science denialist

* believer in flying invisible pink unicorns
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
blytzd
Your micro-bio is still empty.
08:44 PM on 04/11/2011
dont they all fantasize about horses with phallic symbols on their heads
09:55 AM on 04/17/2011
The NET effect of increasing CO2 mixed with water vapor might be to actually REDUCE the overall greenhouse effect of the mixture. The GCM programmers may have made a COLOSSAL mistake! They made the assumption that the addition of one greenhouse gas to the air, one with LESS radiation trapping ability than THE major greenhouse gas, water vapor, (that's a science fact so don't bother denying that one), would tend to increase the greenhouse effect by its comparably tiny amount of GHG properties.

That may turn out to be INCORRECT...

What WOULD all of you natural climate deniers say if THIS science turned out to be true - http://www.biocab.org/Mean_Free_Path.pdf ?

What will you say if the FUNDAMENTAL assumption used in the GCM's turns out to be 100% BACKWARDS?

It would sure explain the lack of correlation they have to the real world wouldn't it?
11:02 PM on 04/10/2011
Great Show on PBS

http://www­.pbs.org/p­rograms/ea­rth-the-op­erators-ma­nual/
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
msblynne
doesn't hate or fear science
09:11 PM on 04/10/2011
"This legislation will kill the economy!" Same drivel they blathered about the Family Medical Leave Act. Remember? Every time they open their mouths, more nonsense is spewed forth. Shame on those Dems too.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Vegan Girl
Compassion for all
09:38 PM on 04/08/2011
Here's the list of the 17 "Dirty Air Democrats," who voted to block, delay or limit the Clean Air Act's climate rules: Sens. Baucus (D-MT), Begich (D-AK), Hagan (D-NC), Levin (D-MI), Brown (D-OH), Casey (D-PA), Conrad (D-ND), Johnson (D-SD), Klobuchar (D-MN), Pryor (D-AR), Stabenow (D-MI), Landrieu (D-LA), Manchin (D-WV), McCaskill (D-MO), Nelson (D-NE), Rockefeller (D-WV), Webb (D-VA)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robco1
08:26 PM on 04/10/2011
Thanks, Vegan Girl! Fanned and Faved!

I just saw this nice clipping of the Climate Hawks Mike Doyle (D-PA) and Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) ripping apart Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) in debate on the House floor.

They point out that China is beginning a Cap and Trade program and taxing high-carbon enterprises. Look like the "taxing carbon will just push jobs to China" talking point bites the dust... http://climateprogress.org/2011/04/10/climate-hawks-fight-gop-clean-energy-economy/
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:00 PM on 04/08/2011
So one of the GOP's arguments against regulating emmissions is essentially "everybody's doing it"?

Not but two years ago people were saying the US had one of the largest carbon footprint of any nation. Multiple teachers I had were teaching this in class. In South Carolina, of all places. I should think regulating ourselves would make an impact, even though it can't solve the problem. Every little bit of ground we can get will add up eventually.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sydney Light
04:32 PM on 04/08/2011
The GOP should now pay for all the brain damage caused by their singularly ignorant and (perhaps brain damaged?) point of view toward pollutants.
photo
Mister Grumpy
An Angry American
04:30 PM on 04/08/2011
Hell ........ who needs clean air?... cough... cough... cough........

Certainly not the serfs..............
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
msblynne
doesn't hate or fear science
09:13 PM on 04/10/2011
Serfs will work longer hours without pay once the unions are destroyed and their brains damaged.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
gsmp
What the ????
10:01 AM on 04/08/2011
I want to see a rejection of the corporegressives, not just their irresponsible idi0cy!
photo
ILoveFiction
That's unbelievable!
02:48 AM on 04/08/2011
Thanks for the chuckle, PT.
photo
ILoveFiction
That's unbelievable!
02:47 AM on 04/08/2011
A Dissenting View on Global Climate Change

(The Electricity Journal, Volume 6, Issue 6, pp. 62-69, July 1993)
- Henry R. Linden

Four years as President of the Gas Technology Institute.

"Linden has received numerous awards for his technical and analytical work in the fossil fuel area "

Oh great. A chemical engineer in the gas industry explaining global warming.

The paper contains a big fat whopping error. How do you suppose that got through the peer review process?

Of the Electricity Journal.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ClimateHawk
Think before posting.
09:20 AM on 04/08/2011
An 18 year old discussion about how well we understand the carbon cycle?

All that tells you is that 18 years ago, somebody had some doubts. Unless you think nothing has been learned about it since then, it's irrelevant.

Interesting paper. More of a rant than a work of science.

From the author's conclusion: "every study of the consequences of the use of carbon taxes ... would has indicated it would ... have disastrous economic and social consequences."

Odd how that is included in an article that berates "alarmism".

Is there any science of substance on PT's list? Not clear.