Senator Murkowski Lights a Fire Under Alaskan Ice

You have all seen the devastating pictures of ice and glaciers melting in Alaska and at the poles.  Most of you have heard the stories of some villages in our largest state literally disappearing into the sea because of rapidly rising sea levels. Clearly, is clearly the frontlines of climate change – and they are losing the battle.  You would think of all of the Senators in all 50 states, there would be one who would stand up and vociferously urge their peers to address global warming…. And mean it. 

 Don’t get me wrong.  Senator Murkowski (R-AK) can definitely talk a good game and has, in moments of lucidity, called on Congress to address climate change.

 Unfortunately, that changes today as Senator Murkowski teeters on introducing an amendment to environmental spending legislation that would allow EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions only from mobile sources, and portends to prohibit the agency from regulating heat-trapping emissions from the greatest source of pollutions --  stationary sources like power plants and industrial facilities.

 I think David Moulton, director of climate policy and conservation funding at the Wilderness Society said it best to the NYTimes – “This amendment suggests that if global warming pollution comes from a power plant, it is safe, but if it comes from a car, it is harmful…. That is a preposterous distinction that cannot be supported in either law or fact."

 Senator Murkowski, the melting ice, rising sea, displaced people, and drowning polar bears don’t see the difference in the SOURCES of pollution – all they see are the dire impacts of not cleaning up the pollution itself.   It is time to address the impacts of global warming pollution. You - of all of our elected-officials - should be leading the charge.

 

Special note: When I worked as a lobbyist on Capitol Hill, I had the pleasure of working with Senator Murkowski’s office on the Mercury Export Ban bill, which was sponsored by then-Senator Obama.  We were successful in our quest to get it signed into law and when the ban goes into effect, it will substantially reduce mercury contamination in fish, prevent the contamination of our water, and shield our children from a dangerous chemical.  I know that Murkowski can be a great, non-partisan leader.  I hope that she will veer from this new course that will harm the environment and put some of that know-how towards climate change.  

Follow Heather Taylor-Miesle on Twitter: www.twitter.com/NRDC_AF

Comments

[springsm]

OOPS I take that all back, I misread who was saying what in the article. My bad. It is true that the polar bears need protecting­,....but she is not saying do it...she is walking around the issues. I am sorry for the supportive comments. I wondered when I read her name if she had had a sudden conversion. I see it isn't so. My face is red, my apology is sincere. Maybe these will both be censored.

[springsm]

Perhaps if that ego hatted Salazar would put the Polar bears on the endangered species list, it would draw attention to the damage that the environment has endured for so long. Salazar is all about continuing Bush's efforts to deregulate all protection for all enviornmental issues...B­ush's follies, signed late at night under the cover of dark curtains. I know this is far fetched, but without a real effort on may fronts, there won't be any changes.

[JanBjernfalk]

The ice is melting at the poles?

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

Just look at the data and decide for yourself.

[Richard2]

The NOAA website has mean sea level data from tide stations in Alaska. At many of these stations, the sea level is falling, not rising. At the north pole, there is solid sea ice. In the whole Arctic Ocean area, the sea ice extent minimum this year was 23% larger than it was in 2007.

Heather, what is devastating about a healthy rebound of sea ice in the Arctic? The additional ice will make good habitat for the polar bears.

[abbienormal]

Murkowski won't get very far with that.

[springsm]

Probably not, it is sensible, morally ethical and has integrity. Congress won't buy it...cause they don't recognize those characteristics as valuable. tut tut!! Go Senator Murkowski!