## US House Members Introduce Bipartisan Disapproval Resolution to Block EPA Regulation of GHG; Mirrors Murkowski Resolution

##### 27 February 2010

Congressman Ike Skelton (D-Mo); Congressman Collin Peterson (D-Minn), and Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo) introduced a joint resolution in the House of Representatives to nullify the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) finding in December 2009 that greenhouse gases (GHG) are a threat to human health and therefore could be regulated under the Clean Air Act. Congressman Skelton is the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

US Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) earlier introduced an identical resolution, S.J. Res. 26, in the US Senate. (Earlier post.)

Under the Congressional Review Act of 1996 (CRA), Congress has 60 legislative days to review a major rule under expedited legislative procedures and consider a resolution to disapprove of the rulemaking. 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.”

Congress stands in the shoes of the American people. Executive branch agencies, like EPA, carry out the laws passed by Congress. When Congress passed the Clean Air Act, it never gave EPA the explicit authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions for the purpose of stopping global climate change. But, that is exactly what EPA has proposed to do.

I do not agree with the EPA or the 2007 Supreme Court ruling that gave the Agency that authority. So, today, I introduced a bipartisan joint resolution to stop EPA from implementing its proposed greenhouse gas regulations that would likely be very costly to farmers, business owners, Midwestern utilities, and consumers.

The resolution of disapproval does not stop Congress from working on important energy legislation, though I do hope it will set aside cap and trade in favor of a more scaled back bipartisan bill. My resolution does, however, keep EPA from threatening Congress with its own greenhouse gas policy as we write legislation.

—Congressman Skelton

In addition to precluding future regulation of stationary sources of greenhouse gases by the EPA under the current framework, passage of a disapproval resolution would also nullify EPA’s soon to be introduced final ruling on greenhouse gases from light duty vehicles.

Under President Obama’s national fuel policy (earlier post), the EPA and the Department of Transportation’s NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration), are jointly developing a new harmonized national policy intended to reduce fuel consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for all new cars and trucks sold in the US.

The resulting set of new standards will cover model years 2012-2016, and will require an average fuel economy standard of 35.5 mpg in 2016 (39 mpg for cars, 30 mpg for trucks), or approximately 250 grams CO2/mile.

In response to a query from Senator Diane Feinstein’s (D-Ca) office about the potential impact of the passage of the Murkowski amendment, O. Kevin Vincent, the Chief Counsel for NHTSA, wrote earlier in February that:

As a strictly legal matter, the Murkoswki Resolution does not directly impact NHTSA’s independent statutory authority to set fuel economy standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). However, passage of the Murkowski Amendment would have profoundly adverse effects on the national economy, national environment and energy security objectives, and the economically distressed automobile manufacturing industry. While NHTSA’s promulgation of independent, stand alone CAFE standards would make important contributions, its standards could not avoid those adverse affects.

...given EPA’s grant of the California waiver request in 2009, California and the States that adopted the California standards could move forward to enforce standards that are inconsistent with the Federal standards, thus creating confusion, encouraging renewed litigation, and driving up the cost of compliance to automobile manufacturers and consumers alike.

If the Murkowski Resolution were to be adopted, Vincent wrote, NHTSA would endeavor to fulfill its statutory obligation to finalize a CAFE rule as quickly as practicably as possible, although it would miss the 1 April deadline.

"The resulting set of new standards will cover model years 2012-2016, and will require an average fuel economy standard of 35.5 mpg in 2016 (39 mpg for cars, 30 mpg for trucks), or approximately 250 grams CO2/mile."

In other words, scuttle the fuel economy standards the rest of the world does/will meet (as before) and prepare to bailout bankrupt US auto makers again.

20 less populated states are represented by 40 senators. This disproportionate representation allows long time incumbents to do what ever they want. Either proposing measures like this or blocking needed legislation.

Some 26 States, with less Senators than California, could force-introduce rediculous bills in the USA non-representative Senate driving back progress and democracy.

If they do, time may have come for a major structural change to make the Senate more representative, to give politicians the task and resposabilities to au- date USA laws and regulations required to stop current specualtions, embezzlements, counter-productive lobbies etc.

Back when there were 13 colonies that became states, the two senator system might have made sense. Now that there are more than 300 million people with 1/3 in the 5 most populated states, it does not. This is why the Constitution was allowed to be amended, to keep pace with changing times.

One of the best things YOU can do is NEVER vote for an incumbent politician for the rest of your life.

Political Agenda Distorting EPA Science

Last year, Ag Chairman, Congressman Collin Peterson openly stated that the EPA is in bed with the oil industry. Look at the long list of carcinogens and neurotoxins in gasoline, including the killer benzene, plus Sulfurous Black Carbon Soot. These are actual causal factors that the EPA fails to regulate. Then ask yourself why the EPA has made symptom - CO2 - their priority. And why the EPA allowed oil refineries in Texas and other states to repeatedly violate emissions rules for decades. And why the EPA has over-rated the carbon footprint of gasoline, and used this to create a false comparison vs biofuels, by using an outdated petroleum baseline - Ignoring the shift to energy and pollution intensive crude oils, such as miles-deep offshore oil wells, and Canadian Tar Sands that are deforesting millions of acres. Why the EPA lowballs the impact of burning dirty bunker fuel, to ship imported oil and ethanol thousands of miles to the United States. Why the EPA low-balls the impact of burning huge quantities of military jet fuel, diesel fuel, and more bunker fuel to protect the US foreign oil supply chain. Why the EPA embraced international indirect land use change theory, which can’t be scientifically proven – using it to manipulate and restrict American ethanol. Why the EPA allowed a fraudulent peer review process, whereby the author of the controversial theory and his assistants and colleagues, all biofuel critics and political activists with conflicts of interest, rubber stamped their own work. Why the EPA excluded from the peer review process, more experienced land use experts in the Dept of Agriculture. Why the EPA, two months after their preliminary rule, reduced indirect land use change impact for Brazilian ethanol a whopping 93% for their final rule…While at the same time, a scholarly German study declared that ALL direct and indirect land use change in Brazil, and ALL Brazilian deforestation, was caused by expanding Brazilian industries - Not American ethanol. This is the exact opposite of what the EPA falsely claims in their RFS-2 rules…

Using these tactics and a false tailpipe comparison between the newly mined carbon that gasoline is spewing into the air vs recycled CO2 released by ethanol - EPA under-rated conventional ethanol at only 21% cleaner than gasoline. This is way off. Two recent studies: one funded by the USDA and North Central Bioeconomy Consortium gave conventional ethanol a rating of 48-59% cleaner than gasoline, and the other study at Yale matched that at 59% cleaner. Why the big discrepancy? Because EPA is still falsely claiming that American ethanol is displacing land in foreign countries, when it’s Not. EPA has abused its power and overstepped its authority.

Over the objections of 111 scientists, lead by three prominent experts in the field, C-ARB prematurely embraced defective and corrupt EPA science. This included the unproven indirect land use change theory, without an independent peer review, which C-ARB illegally rammed into their rules. This was designed to keep out-of-state ethanol out of California, for the benefit of the state’s own petroleum industry, in violation of Federal interstate commerce law. See: “California’s Love Affair with Oil”, by Joanna Schroeder (Domestic Fuel).

Using EPA’s false analysis of the land use theory, C-ARB also declared that California would import Brazilian ethanol instead of domestic American ethanol. That will export American jobs to Brazil, undermine domestic economic stimulus, tax revenue and farm subsidy offsets generated by domestic ethanol, and shift one dependency on imported oil to another dependency on imported ethanol. This also plays into the hands of the privately owned central bank, which collects perpetual floating interest on debt instruments, added to the National Debt, used to pay for imported fuel.

EPA and C-ARB have woven a web of deception based on a hidden pseudo-environmental political agenda that favors the industries of their choice. And at their whim, they can selectively enforce or not enforce their rules, while maintaining the superficial image of a government agency. For the well-informed Representative Collin Petersen, this issue is more about the over-regulation of agriculture and biofuels, using falsified science. For others, it’s about protecting the oil industry. Strange bedfellows fighting a turf war over market share.

EPA does seem to want to regulate some things a LOT more than others. We need to expand American ethanol capacity today - to pick up even a small cut in overall foreign oil imports.

This resolution demonstrates how badly flawed the AGW campaign has been.

Obviously ethanol is much cleaner than gasoline, but when you factor in that it takes the energy of a gallon
of gas to make 1.3 gals of ethanol, and then ethanol has only about 80-85% power of gasoline, how much if any cleaner is it?

What does E.P.A stand for? Environmental Protection Agency.

The continual release of huge amount of CO2 and other GHG's such as methane in such a short amount of geologic time frame cannot be good for the environment. This is analogous to CFC's causing depletion of ozone layer, and CFC's release has been tightly controlled for the past many decades. Drastic climate changes will be bad for the environment. The rise of sea level threatening to drown many low-lying land masses in the world is not a good environmental changes. Risk of infectious and parasitic diseases migrating from the tropics to the temperate zone won't be a good development, etc.

So, then, what's the logic behind preventing the EPA from regulating the emission of GHG's, other than self-serving political motives?

"I do not agree with the EPA or the 2007 Supreme Court ruling that gave the Agency that authority. So, today, I introduced a bipartisan joint resolution to stop EPA from implementing its proposed greenhouse gas regulations that would likely be very costly to farmers, business owners, Midwestern utilities, and consumers."

Costly to farmers...etc? Not if the regulations are announced sufficiently in advance so that everyone will have time to adapt. Let's not forget that the surge of the Green industries and the Green economy will bring about economic growth and creating millions of much needed jobs here at home.

The cell phones and the PC's booms helped Bill Clinton balanced the US gov. budget. Obama cannot reproduce Clinton's success unless he will manage a comparable boom in the Green Industries, which should be nurtured in order to become world class caliber and can lead the US in foreign export revenues to balance the chronic trade deficits. The EPA can be used as an instrument in spearheading this new economic boom that will rescue the ailing US and world wide economy!

Develop foresight, US Senate...look beyond self-serving special interests, and LEAD, instead of follow!

Correction: I meant "Develop foresight, US Congress..." since both the US Senate and the US House are now equally guilty of crimes against the environment!

Bennett Parish is using old, outdated information. The energy return on ethanol is now 1.5 to 1.8 for the average refinery and 2.2 and above for integrated ethanol plants using manure-based or waste based biogas for production power (2009 Nebraska-Lincoln study). Crude corn oil extraction is also being added to ethanol plants (Greenshift). This increases overall fuel production by 7% (biodiesel). Another process fine grinds the feedstock and increases ethanol production by 3.5 to 5% (Cellunator by EdeniQ). So the near term energy return for corn ethanol is 1.7 to 2, and for integrated refineries 2.4 and above.

Corn ethanol refineries use domestic natural gas, which has been reduced to 30% of what was used in the past. And now some refineries are displacing natural gas with renewables. A recent USDA funded study found that 10-19 gallons of ethanol are produced for every gallon of petroleum used in the entire corn-ethanol production life cycle. See: “UNL Research: Corn Ethanol Emits 51 Percent Less Greenhouse Gas Than Gasoline”.

Some corn farmers are producing their own biodiesel fuel, and others are supplementing diesel with vaporized ethanol-water: CleanFlex Power System delivers the 60-40 solution of ethanol-water as a vapor through the air intake. It makes a diesel engine run cleaner with more power and saves over a dollar an hour in fuel costs. The ethanol-water vapor represents 15 to 30 percent of the diesel engine fuel consumption, using watered-down cheaper fuel. This could create a much larger market for ethanol and also displace more imported oil with cleaner domestic ethanol. Could this same method be used to provide supplemental renewable fuel to gasoline engines? Ethanol-water vapor delivered through the air intake bypasses the fuel tank, the fuel pump, and the fuel lines. So there's no compatability issues.

Meanwhile, USA will increase import of the dirtiest crude extracted from Alberta's tar sands from 2.5 to 4.5 million barrels/day by 2020-2025 or as soon as new plants and pipelines become operational (without oil wars). That will be enough to replace about all imports form middle East. Secondly, all investments and profits stay in the family with the exception of 2% for royalties.

You people calling for "more representative Senators" need to learn some history. There's a REASON there are two senators per state. It's to keep you jackboots in the big city states from forcing people like me, who lives in a small population state, to do whatever it is you think you want. We don't live in a democracy, idiots.

And I'm damn glad we don't. Now if we could just repeal that stupid 17th Amendment so that senators would go back to doing what they're supposed to be doing.

And for you who think that popular election of the senators somehow makes them less "bought and sold," I need only point to the House of Representativesellouts.

Last year the EPA censored their own 25 year senior analyst, Dr. Allen Carlin, because he found evidence that average temperatures were actually going down, and that the EPA was blindly using UN and IPCC foreign science, without verifying it themselves. Since then, IPCC has been caught manipulating information and has been discredited. Yet the EPA went full speed ahead with the UN agenda to label CO2 a pollutant, when it is not.

Logic will tell you that a 1 or 2 degree rise in average global temperature, even if it was happening, is not enough to cause glaciers and masses of ice and snow to melt. Sulfurous Black Carbon Soot has been identified as the cause – Not CO2. So you won’t save glaciers and ice caps by regulating CO2. Same thing for Ocean Acidification. You won’t save the oceans by regulating CO2, because acid rain and precipitating Black Carbon Soot is a much bigger factor. Yet the political agenda of the UN and the IPCC is to finger CO2, in order to lay the groundwork for a global carbon tax and a cap and trade scheme. Both of these are being rejected in the United States.

However, Americans overwhelmingly support the evolution of Green Technology, alternative energy, and clean high mileage vehicles. And there is a strong movement to bring this about. Tax credits, government incentives, and loan guarantees are already working. Wind, Solar, Biofuels and other alternatives are experiencing rapid growth and good public support, without excessive layers of government bureaucracy and too much control. We don’t need cap and trade, EPA over-regulation, or carbon taxes to create jobs in cleantech industries. These would only increase the cost of living and have a negative impact on the already troubled economy.

It was a big mistake for the EPA to allow C-ARB to make-up its own rules. That is divisive. This has already caused California to violate Federal Law and discriminate against our domestic ethanol industry, by falsely regulating CO2 using the same manipulated EPA science.

Do we have an environmental problem? Yes. But it’s not CO2. It’s the “real pollutants.

Perhaps Carlin's report was censored because it had no credibility. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/science/earth/25epa.html

While it can be argued that black carbon soot can have a warming effect, it should also be said that the particulate in the atmosphere has a cooling effect which has been said to be masking the true extent of warming from GHG.

Although some even continue to deny there is actual warming regardless of its cause, it's pretty certain to be happening, even if it does seem cold outside.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/26/climate-scientists-january-hottest/

This is a resolution demonstrating that politicized "science" - especially in support of the utterly failed global warming fable - will not pass muster.

Lisa Jackson - EPA's clueless leader, makes an abject fool of herself by insisting that man made CO2 is responsible for global warming. This resolution will strip EPA of it's desire to demonize carbon dioxide, a naturally occurring trace gas and plant fertilizer.

Human activity contributes 2-3 percent of the total .0388ppm CO2 in Earth's atmosphere. This does not affect climate measurably.

Roger is correct about needing green industries to balance budget. The tragedy is the green movement DID NOT LISTEN when repeatedly warned that AGW was a failed campaign. This arrogance and refusal to realign the campaign to the far more acceptable energy independence approach - has collapsed the entire green movement. AND the conservation movement. AND the global poverty initiatives. AND the energy independence campaign.

Basically, AGW arrogance, pride and self-righteous cultism have destroyed social and environmental progress for the next century. Thanks enlightened people!

"The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself – most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change.
British Institute of Physics - to Parliament 2/27/2010

Aureon:

Yes, just about everything and everybody is for sale in this great democratic country. That being said, the real common denominator (supreme leader) in the House, Senate and Administration may be pressure groups' $$via their all powerful lobbies. With enough$$$they get their chosen representatives elected and then pull the strings for the next 4+ years. Would it realy matter if the Senate had 500 Senators instead of 100? More string pullers would quickly materialize? One of the best way to change this organized trend (democratic deviation) would be to ban political donations from all organisations and limit direct personnal contributions to$5 or $10 per citizen or elector. Governments could match public personnal contributions, up to$5 or \$10 per voter.

Would lobbies allow any meaningful changes to be voted in the House and Senate? It is very doubtful they would.

Meanwhile, it will probably be more of the same.

"politicized science?"

Oh heck, that's old news; http://environment.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=environment&cdn=newsissues&tm=39&gps=797_572_1676_830&f=20&tt=2&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/investigation-reveals-0007.html

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/10/white-house-cen/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/06/AR2007040600291.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/jun/09/science.environment

"We don't live in a democracy, idiots."

If you keep calling people idiots, I doubt that you will convince anyone of your point of view. Get some anger management training before you go postal.

I believe that Dr. Allen Carlin, a 25 year senior analyst at the EPA had a credible report, but it contradicted the political agenda of the EPA. Carlin exposed the EPA for failing to perform their own science, and fast-tracking unverified foreign science instead. That’s why he was smeared. Perhaps the NYT is a tool of global warming propaganda. The EPA did not verify IPCC science. They automatically used it as the foundation of their rulemaking. Perhaps EPA is being orchestrated by New York and London, rather than Washington DC.

Black Carbon Soot (BCS) does Not have a cooling effect. That’s an obsolete concept. Aerosols are known to have reflective characteristics. However, BCS is not your typical aerosol. Black absorbs solar-thermal heat. Everyone should know that. Also, new analysis shows that Sulfurous Black Carbon Soot, while suspended in the air, combines with other chemicals, and multiplies heat absorption 1.6 times. BCS absorbs heat while it’s suspended. See: “Sulfate Lens Enhances Climate Warming Properties of Atmospheric Soot” (GreenCarCongress):

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/06/sulfate-lens-20090630.html#more

“Many people think sulfate aerosols are a good thing because they are highly reflective and cool our planet. However we are seeing that sulfate is commonly mixed with soot in the same particles, which means in some regions sulfate could lead to more warming as opposed to more cooling as one would expect for a pure sulfate aerosol.” (Kimberly Prather, professor in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego)

I think we’re going to find that suspended Black Carbon Soot (BCS) has a much bigger impact on the warming effect, bigger than CO2. The problem is, BCS does not fit the political agenda, because it can be controlled locally. That sinks the global carbon tax and the universal cap and trade scheme. It also limits control to a much smaller fraction of industries, rather than regulating CO2 universally, to control all industries and every single entity on Earth.

BCS also migrates hundreds or thousands of miles and settles-out. Wherever that happens a second effect takes place, the melting of ice and snow. BCS in water run-off generates a third effect, acidification, which migrates through the watershed into the oceans.

According to the UK Gov't environmemntal advisor Sir Jonathan Portritt climate change is caused by fat people forget about all this other remarkable nonsense.

Check it out:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/5436335/Fat-people-causing-climate-change-says-Sir-Jonathan-Porritt.html

Excellent comment Mannstein.

"The World Health Organisation recently published some data showing that each overweight person causes an additional one tonne of CO2 to be emitted every year.," he said. "With one billion people judged to be overweight around the world – of whom at least 300 million are obese – that's an additional one billion tonnes."

As much of this weight resides in the west, it is likely causing axial wobble to the Earth's rotation, which results in further solar induced climate irregularity. "Fat is a feminist issue."

"Fat people causing climate change, says Sir Jonathan Porritt"
No, he didn't say that. That's just what the editor put in the title to grab your attention.

What he really said is in the small print under the title: "Fat people are harming the planet by contributing to climate change, according to Sir Jonathan Porritt, the Government's chief green adviser."

And then the article goes on to say: "He pointed out overweight people eat more protein-rich food such as beef or lamb, which is responsible for producing greenhouse gases because of the toxic methane livestock emits. He also said obese people are more likely to use cars rather than walk or cycle, therefore producing more carbon emissions."

Do you disagree that overweight people eat more protein-rich food such as beef or lamb or that obese people are more likely to use cars rather than walk or cycle?

Junk food related obesity (and many other related deseases) is a worldwide growing problem but may or may not be major contributors to global warming.

However, the desastrous multiple effects on our health, productivity and health care cost could bankrupt many countries if the trend is allowed to continue uncheked.

It's interesting that Aureon Kwolek rails against the EPA being in bed with Big Oil on the one hand, and then rails against California implicitly promoting Brazilian ethanol on the other.

Who's left out of this? Big Corn, directly subsidized by the US taxpayer. That's what he's promoting. (He's also a climate-change denialist, which speaks volumes by itself.)

Brazil's ethanol is distilled using bagasse, a renewable fuel. Big Corn's ethanol is distilled with natural gas if it's "clean", and coal if it's not. California is absolutely right to promote Brazilian cane over Iowan corn on environmental grounds, until the US Congress stops mandating the use of ethanol despite its proven polluting effects (it increases evaporative emissions).

The comments to this entry are closed.