The Senate today voted 53 to 47 to reject a resolution sponsored by U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) that would have stopped the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions from large polluters such as factories, power plants and oil refineries.
Murkowski, the highest ranking Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, claimed the EPA was exceeding its authority, saying that "this resolution is about protecting the economy and preventing agency overreach." At an EPA environmental conference for small-business owners earlier this week, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson accused Murkowski of trying to undermine the agency's efforts to control emissions from large polluters.
"It would take away EPA's ability to take action on climate change," Jackson said of Murkowski's resolution, which environmentalists nicknamed the Dirty Air Act. "And it would ignore and override scientific findings, allowing big oil companies, big refineries and others to continue to pollute without any oversight or consequence. Finally, it will result in exactly zero protections for small businesses."
On Tuesday, President Barack Obama promised to veto Murkowski's proposal if Congress passed it.
The problem with Murkowski's argument about "agency overreach" is that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act and that the EPA has the authority to regulate them. In December 2009, the EPA completed a comprehensive review of scientific data, which confirmed that six greenhouse gases pose a serious threat to public health and the welfare of the American people and are subject to federal regulation under the Clean Air Act.
"The resolution would have erased the finding of EPA that global warming pollution is a threat to human health and safety, and would have blocked action required by the Supreme Court," said Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune. "The effect would have been to weaken the Clean Air Act, leaving oil and coal companies free to keep on putting global warming pollution into the air without any safeguards or regulation."
This isn't the first time Murkowski has taken aim at the EPA and its authority to regulate greenhouse gases. In September 2009, she started circulating a proposed amendment to the $32.1 billion appropriations bill that would have prohibited the EPA from spending any federal funds "to regulate or control carbon dioxide from any sources other than a mobile source" or to treat the greenhouse gas as a pollutant subject to federal regulation for one year.
The Senate refused to consider Murkowski's amendment in September, but she kept the issue alive by threatening to offer the amendment again in January 2010, this time as an addition to the debt ceiling bill. Instead, she changed her strategy and offered a rarely used "disapproval resolution." If it had passed, the resolution essentially would have served as a congressional veto of EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from large polluters. The defeat of Murkowski's resolution means the EPA is free to move forward with its proposed regulations, but it could still be years before the regulations take effect.
Throughout this process, Murkowski has maintained that she is not trying to permanently block federal action to curb climate change. She says she simply believes that Congress, not the EPA, should take responsibility for finding a solution that will balance economic and environmental priorities.
Ironically, the White House, the EPA, and many of those who opposed Murkowski's amendment agree. Until Congress accepts that responsibility and takes the necessary action, however, the EPA should be allowed to do its job.
"Opponents and supporters of this resolution should agree on one thing--it is the Senate's job to put America on the path to a clean energy future," Brune said. "Instead of challenging the EPA's authority to keep the air clean and reduce global warming pollution, the Senate must challenge itself to take responsibility and pass strong, comprehensive climate and energy legislation this year and end our oil dependence."
Also Read:
Comments
The Exxon Valdez and BP Horizon oil spills shows that accidents happen.
If Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline project is approved it would carry half a million barrels of crude oil a day from the Alberta tar sands to the port of Kitimat, B.C. The oil would then be loaded into tankers that would sail through the narrow inlets of the Great Bear Rainforest before heading out to sea. At least 225 oil tankers a year would traverse this fragile coastal route, delivering tar sands oil to Asian markets.
Stop the Enbridge Pipeline. E-mail the Prime Minister and urge him to permanently ban super tankers so that B.C.’s North and Central Coast is not the site of the world’s next disastrous oil spill.
Action alert link in video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDxT6rSxq2k
If Enbridge’s Union Gateway pipage programme is authorised it would transfer half a million barrels of unconditional oil a day from the Alberta tar sands to the opening of Kitimat, B.C. The oil would then be unexploded into tankers that would navigate finished the illiberal inlets of the Extraordinary Create Forest before passageway out to sea
Ironically, the White House, the EPA, and galore of those who conflicting Murkowski’s amendment hold. Until Legislature accepts that trustworthiness and takes the obligatory activeness, nonetheless, the EPA should be allowed to do its job
jhonesm