EnerDel Plans to Invest $237M in New Indiana Lithium-Ion Battery Plant
DOE Closes $465M Loan to Tesla Motors

Three Democrats Support Sen. Murkowski’s Effort to Derail EPA GHG Regulation

US Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, today introduced a “disapproval resolution” to stop the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. The resolution—co-sponsored by 35 Republicans and three Democrats—comes in the wake of the EPA’s recent endangerment finding. (Earlier post.)

Murkowski had introduced an amendment last fall that would have stopped for one-year any EPA greenhouse gas regulations on stationary sources. That proposal would have allowed the EPA to continue with its plans to regulate tailpipe emissions from cars. (Earlier post.)

Murkowski is the ranking Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. She filed her disapproval resolution pursuant to the provisions of the Congressional Review Act (CRA). Sen. Don Nickles, R-Okla., and Sen. Harry Reid, D-NV, were the principal sponsors of the CRA, incorporated into the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996, and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

The CRA established expedited (“fast track”) procedures by which Congress may disapprove a broad range of regulatory rules issued by federal agencies by enacting a joint resolution of disapproval. For initial floor consideration, the Act provides an expedited procedure only in the Senate, which may use the procedure for 60 days of session after the agency transmits the rule to Congress.

If a disapproval resolution is enacted, the rule may not take effect and the agency may issue no substantially similar rule without subsequent statutory authorization. If a rule is disapproved after going into effect, it is “treated as though [it] had never taken effect.”

If either house rejects a disapproval resolution, the rule may take effect at once. If the President vetoes the resolution, the rule may not take effect for 30 days of session thereafter, unless the House or Senate votes to sustain the veto. If a session of Congress adjourns sine die less than 60 days of session after receiving a rule, the full 60-day periods for action begin anew on the 15th day of session after the next session convenes.

Upon introduction, a disapproval resolution is referred to the committee of jurisdiction, which in this case will be the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. If the committee does not favorably report the resolution, it may be discharged upon petition by 30 Senators. Once a disapproval resolution is placed on the Senate calendar, it is then subject to expedited consideration on the Senate floor, and not subject to filibuster.

In addition to the 35 Republican co-sponsors, the resolution is supported by Democrats Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), the Chairman of the US Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry; Ben Nelson (D-NE); and Mary Landrieu (D-LA).

Resources

Comments

kelly

Can 'Oil' Murkowski ease up trashing living things.

HarveyD

It's amazing what $$$ and self interest can make people do.

sulleny

Gentlemen, you really had to expect this would happen. Seeing how AGW is actively crashing and burning each and every day now. EPA tried to circumvent the democratic process and regulate a harmless plant fertilizer trace gas. A gas that provides the effervescence in our beer, wine, soft drinks and sparkling waters. Nothing more than extortion unless someone here can prove that man-made CO2 has caused the Earth's climate to change beyond natural variability.

Like the obfuscation tricks used by the infamous hockey team, this bit of back hand maneuvering is now uncloaked. It would never have passed a judicial test anyway. But this on the same day that Air America crashes into bankruptcy?? Divine intervention??

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/21/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6126410.shtml?tag=latest

The Goracle

.

HarveyD said: It's amazing what $$$ and self interest can make people do.

You've got that right!!! Look at what $$$ and self interest has done to the "climate researchers!" They have committed fraud, lied about results, lied about data, manipulated data to match wanted results, blocked dissent, and have committed crimes - all in the name of the almighty $$$$.

Oh look... another admission of fraud! This time by the United Nations no less!

UN climate chief admits mistake on Himalayan glaciers warning

Waiting for the next "Oh, we lied" scandal to come out. They are more or less weekly now...

Who knows, maybe these upstanding Democrats have the ability to read - and think. Therefore, they don't believe the climate catastrophe propaganda.

.

Will S

No one really believes Murkowski has anything but oil company interests in mind here...

Aureon Kwolek

The “Will S” comment may be true. But what also may be true is:

The thing on the very top of the EPA list of pollutants – CO2 – is Not a pollutant. You wouldn’t have a food chain without it.

There’s a superficial whiff of new world order / universal control mechanism / global carbon tax, lingering in the air... and fading away.

Now it’s time to mitigate specific pollutants with specific legislation.

Marc Ferguson

I'm curious why deniers are following greencarcongress. I guess ignorance likes an audience. Harvey, don't let the preponderence of evidence outweigh the usefullness of an exageration to manipulate the argument. And Will, you're argument is pretty lame. H2O will kill you in excess - get a clue. No one has suggested eliminating CO2, any more than suggesting we eliminate human waste, but I think we all agree that dumping (sorry for the pun) it in the street is not a good idea. Let's try cleaining it up.

Mark_BC

"I'm curious why deniers are following greencarcongress. I guess ignorance likes an audience."

Sulleny doesn't like AGW because if it can be shown that the climate of the whole planet can be dependent on something as simple and corporeal as the infrared absorptive characteristics of the CO2 molecule, then it implies that God isn't controlling our world for us. This then has much wider implications for how the Bible should be interpreted.

Stan seems to be an old school cold war veteran bent out of shape over an obsession with the belief that anything less than ultra right wing, pure free market capitalism will inevitably spiral downhill into a pinko leftist communist state.

The Goracle was influenced as a child to believe that AGW was a threat but for some reason decided that he was being misled and then swung full circle, turned bitterly against the science, living as he does in a polarized right vs. wrong world view.

I guess in all cases, as you say, they want an audience.

Dotcommodity

Could anyone find out who are the 5 Republicans who did not side with Dirty Air Act. I am not finding the list.

That should be the headline:
Filibuster Crumbles as 5 Republicans End Polluter Support

That would be a clue that maybe a few Republicans will finally support legislation to make polluters pay, and provide incentives for renewable energy.

Nick Lyons

This bill is going no where. Murkowski is simply grandstanding for her oil-profit-obsessed constituents back in Alaska. The State of Alaska gets 90% of its general fund budget from oil royalties. Every resident of the state gets a reverse income tax (Permanent Fund Dividend--$1305/head in 2009) which capital came from oil revenues--we pay no state income or sales tax. It is every self-reliant, red-blooded Alaskan's hope that if we just keep drilling for more oil as well as get a gas line built to the Lower 48, that annual handout will only get bigger. Murkowski is running for reelection this year. Enough said.

sulleny

Hilarious to see people actually defend the statement "CO2 is a pollutant." And 3 percent of .0380 = man made contribution.

This link helps explain the alarmist's psyche and how they got caught:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/climategate_analysis.pdf

Henry Gibson

No matter what laws are passed and how much biofuels are used, there will be no chance that the US can lower the CO2 content of the air of the earth. The US decided to export its pollution by exporting its factories to other countries. Pollution will be going down soon in the US when no body needs to go to work because there are no jobs except clean banking jobs. There will be no money to buy electricity or gasoline unless you are getting a bonus for loosing billions of dollars. This will not reduce global CO2. Other countries are now in the drivers seat for production. Most of the new producing countries have built nuclear power plants in the past few years.

Nuclear energy is so missrepresented in this country that people don't know that they and all their ancestors and indeed all living things have always consumed radio-active food and are always radio-active and life on earth adapted to small amounts of radio-activity millions of years ago. Look up Potassium, as in bananas, in Wiki. And yes the US has an approved way in operation of more than adequately storing any kind of highly radioactive material; it is WIPP, and it only has to be duplicated nearby for many more power plants as there is much room in the very deep salt beds. Solar energy is nuclear energy, but fission reactors take far less space and less money because the energy is far more concentrated and reliable. Think of safety when you drive with your cell phone in hand not when maligning nuclear power. More productive land has been destroyed with biofuels than with Chernobyl and fewer than 60 people can be shown to have been killed. ..HG..

Thomas Lankester

What I like about GreenCarCongress (apart for the subject matter!) is the well reasoned exchange of info and views from the serious contributors. This is tarnished by a few 'usual suspects' point-scoring with semantic, not factual, arguments.

Take 'pollution'. According to sulleny this is 'a harmless plant fertilizer'. Which could equally be said to apply to nitrate plant fertilisers but one can have too much of a good thing, as the anoxic dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico testifies. Vitamin A is kind of necessary but too much (http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/126104-overview) causes toxicity with anorexia
hair loss, dryness of mucus membranes, fissures of the lips to name a few symptoms.

According to Aureon Kwolek - 'CO2 – is Not a pollutant. You wouldn’t have a food chain without it'.
But the same applies to ozone., We would be UV irradiated without it but for asthmatics in an inner city smog it is a significant contaminant.

Without CO2 in the atmosphere we'd freeze but with too much we get excessive infra-red forcing and increased ocean acidity. CO2 may not directly pollute individual people or corals colonies but the macro scale effects can affecting both.

Marc Ferguson

NASA just released a report indicating that 2000 - 2009 was the warmest decade on record, and 2009 was the second warmest year on record since 1880 - the first being 2005. I'm guessing that Sulleny has a problem with that as well. It's just one more of the many, many credible data points connecting the dots of a cause-effect relationship between GHG and climate change. The evidence is stacking up. Deniers, for all their ulterior motives, seem to be unmoved by pragmatic examples. We have a near perfect contrast between industrialized China where Acid Rain and Mercury poisoned communities resulted from the same type of ignorance. The US changed our trajectory on the same path through Clean Air legislation during the 70's. What sound mind thinks that changing the makeup of an ecosystem doesn't have a consequence. It's surprising to me that the dinosaurs still have the gall to show their ignorance.

kelly

Scientific data leads over 85% of the world's scientists to conclude that increasing CO2 levels = global warming.

World-wide, there are rising CO2 correlations: glaciers recede, islands flood, polar ice melts, the Arctic becomes navigable.

So Murkowski’s answer is "drill baby drill", a taxpayer-paid deep water port for the oil companies, and derail the EPA Clean Air Act?

Please, I was programming in Silicon Valley when the only state run by a Presidential candidate's brother discovered election reversing 'chads'.

Who knew that ten years would pass and some folks could still believe in such..

The Goracle

.

But the same applies to ozone.

Yes, and the same applies to water/water vapor. Using your logic, water is therefore a pollutant. Water MUST be heavily regulated. The use, storage, transport, etc., of water must be controlled by governments.

It's surprising to me that the dinosaurs still have the gall to show their ignorance.

Once again, a correct statement. That the Globalwarmists will hang onto fraudulent "studies" backed by Big Government $$$$$, and false data sets attempting to back up their faith is astounding. See the link above to the UN Climate Panel retracting another of their extreme, false, positions. Please think rather than blindly follow. If you need a religion please choose from one that doesn't take away freedoms, implement massive tax increases, and add suffocating government control of people's lives. Globalwarmism is a false religion.

I know... BLASPHEMY!!! Let the name calling continue!

.

kelly

Sorry Goracle - I still believe the majority of scientists, disbelieve the chad party, and accept what I see, whether receding mountain glaciers or clearly dated comparison polar satellite photos.

sulleny

"Without CO2 in the atmosphere we'd freeze but with too much we get excessive infra-red forcing and increased ocean acidity."

thomas, I think your first suggestion defeats itself given the universal acceptance that H2O vapour is 90% of the greenhouse effect. Recall that during the Devonian Period CO2 levels averaged between 1800 and 2100 ppm, with no runaway thermal and the growth of Earth's first forests and large plants.

Ocean pH ranges on the geological scale between 7.9 and 8.4 pH. It averages 8.1 at present. This bill demonstrates the return to reality of real science. IF it is proven that CO2 is a real pollutant like SO4,CO or particulates - it should be regulated. No such evidence has been put forth.

Aureon Kwolek

You CO2 enthusiasts are in disarray. Some of you are using the old term global warming, and some are using the newer term climate change. So why the name change? And will it change again?

Whatever you want to call it, the effect is Not Uniform and not consistent. The effect is more concentrated over urban centers and downwind of urban centers, and more concentrated over interstate highways, railroads, shipping lanes, industrial zones, landfills and burning dumps, airports and flight paths, power plants – The sources of pollution that also migrate to other locations.

And each source of pollution is different. So go to the root cause, and control the specific pollutant, with a custom tailored plan of action. A coal burning power plant is not an automobile burning gasoline, or a ship burning bunker fuel, or a locomotive burning diesel fuel, or a school burning heating oil, or a feedlot emitting methane. Mitigate each of them with a custom solution. By eliminating all the Real pollutants, that will bring CO2 back into a natural balance.

If it was global warming, the effect would be uniform. But it's not. Some glaciers are receding, some are advancing. The Receding glaciers in the Himalayas is a good example of why blaming atmospheric CO2 is a false assumption. Here’s why: CO2 is not the controlling factor – Black Carbon Soot is. See “Survival of Tibetan Glaciers” By James Hansen:

“The soot noticeably darkens the glacier surface during the melt season, increases absorption of sunlight, and speeds glacier disintegration… We concluded that black soot is contributing to the rapid melt of glaciers in the Himalayas.” (NASA)

If you try to control melting glaciers by regulating CO2, you are pissing into the wind. Because the main cause is Black Carbon Soot – migrating in the wind from a distant source.

See also NASA News Releases: “Black Carbon Deposits on Himalayan Ice Threaten Earth's Third Pole”; and “New Study Turns Up the Heat on Soot's Role in Himalayan Warming”.

Migrating Black Carbon Soot is a major factor in melting ice and snow, such as polar ice caps. See also: “Sulfate Lens Enhances Climate Warming Properties of Atmospheric Soot”.

Likewise, blaming CO2 for all of ocean acidity is another false assumption. Sulfurous Black Carbon Soot is another cause, possibly a bigger factor than CO2 absorption. Ocean going ships burning bunker fuel are spewing Sulfurous Black Carbon Soot on the oceans. Jet aircraft are doing the same. Sulfurous coal exhaust and diesel exhaust falls-out on land and water, mixed with precipitation, which runs off into the water shed as acid rain, most of which empties into the ocean.

Again – go to the specific pollutant and enact specific legislation to fix it. Stop wasting your time on CO2. Address the cause directly. That’s where the low hanging fruit is.

Engineer-Poet

Tom Lankaster beat me to the point on nitrate.  Way to go, Tom.

Sulleny et al. don't want to admit that the solar constant rises by about 1% per 100 million years.  The ~4x current CO2 concentration in the Devonian was up against roughly 65 W/m² less incoming sunlight.  The effect of the human GHG additions since the Industrial Revolution is about 4 W/m².  Sulleny also keeps harping about water, without ever wanting to admit that atmospheric water vapor is a feedback effect.  Excess water rains or snows out within days, and what keeps it there is heat trapped by non-condensible GHG's.

The comments to this entry are closed.