The Senate will vote Thursday on Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R-Alaska) resolution that would take away the power of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate climate change gases.
Senator Rockefeller (D. CoalCountry) said:
"It is a message about EPA," Rockefeller told reporters in the Capitol on Monday evening. "I think it will send a message regardless of how many votes it gets." That message, he added, "would be with respect to EPA’s closing in on coal."
The Hill
According to NPR, President Barack Obama (USA) today said he would veto any attempt to do so. That is fantastic news!
President Obama is stepping up with this. If there is no cap and trade, then EPA will regulate. Good! This is why, even with some policy differences, President Obama and progressives need to be allied whenever possible.
All things considered, I prefer EPA regulations to the compromises necessary to pass a bill in the Senate.
I'll add more as I find links. (I heard this on NPR news today but have not found links yet).
Update I: More on the terrrible Murkowski Resolution:
Murkowski’s Congressional Review Act resolution would overturn EPA’s scientific finding that global warming pollution threatens public health. On February 25, twelve public health organizations announced their opposition to the Dirty Air Act. The U.S. Department of Transportation determined that – contrary to her statements – Sen. Murkowski’s resolution would undo the clean car rules proposed last year by President Obama. Meanwhile, the American Public Power Association declared support for the Dirty Air Act based on claims that just aren’t so.
Climate Progress
Update II: Link from ypsiCPA in the comments:
Reuters link (1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:TomP
Reuters
The White House on Tuesday threatened a presidential veto if the Senate passes a measure to strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
by ypsiCPA on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 11:23:31 AM PDT
Give ypsiCPA some mojo here!
Update III: More from Reuters:
White House officials have been fighting Murkowski's efforts for months. Obama is under international pressure to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, blamed for heating the earth, while the the United Nations attempts to agree on a pact that would curb emissions worldwide.
"If the President is presented with this Resolution of Disapproval, which would seriously disrupt EPA's ability to address the threat of GHG pollution, as well as the multi-agency Federal GHG and fuel economy program, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the Resolution," the White House said in a statement on Tuesday.
Reuters
Update IV: Full White House Statement:
The Administration strongly opposes Senate passage of S.J. Res. 26, which would undermine the Clean Air Act and hinder EPA’s ability to comply with a Supreme Court ruling on greenhouse gasses (GHGs). The Administration believes that comprehensive energy and climate legislation is the most effective way to transition to a clean energy economy that will create jobs, protect the environment, and increase national security. S.J. Res. 26 would do just the opposite; it would increase the Nation’s dependence on oil and other fossil fuels and block efforts to cut pollution that threatens our health and well-being.
Specifically, passage of S.J. Res. 26 would block implementation of an historic, multi-agency Federal program set in motion by the Administration to promote fuel economy standards that will reduce oil consumption, save American consumers more than $3,000 in fuel costs over the lifetime of a model year 2016 vehicle, and limit pollution from tailpipe emissions. S.J. Res. 26 also 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. As seen in the Gulf of Mexico, environmental disasters harm families, destroy jobs, and pollute the Nation’s air, land and water. Further, S.J. Res. 26 is contrary to the widely-accepted scientific consensus that GHGs are at increasingly dangerous concentrations and are contributing to the threat of climate change. S.J. Res. 26 would strip EPA of its authority to protect the public from GHG pollution, and thus prevent it from following its statutory obligations as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
Finally, S.J. Res. 26 would undo EPA’s carefully constructed approach to reducing pollution generated by the largest oil companies, oil refineries, and other large-scale polluters. EPA’s reasoned approach will provide industry certainty, which is essential to jumpstarting private – sector investments and innovation in clean, renewable energy. S.J. Res. 26 would block the United States from taking action to control environmentally damaging GHGs while other nations take the lead in transitioning to clean energy economies that create the jobs of the future.
If the President is presented with this Resolution of Disapproval, which would seriously disrupt EPA’s ability to address the threat of GHG pollution, as well as the multi-agency Federal GHG and fuel economy program, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the Resolution