Murkowski Amendment to Thwart EPA Was Written by Coal Lobbyists; Come On!

While all eyes were on Haiti last week, Senator Murkowski (R) Alaska, 35 Republicans, and 3 Democrats from fossil fuel states introduced a disapproval resolution to stop the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Murkowski likes to patronize the EPA’s power to do so calling it “back door climate regulations.”
What??? Stop right there. Massachusetts vs. EPA in 2007 was an epic decision by a conservative Supreme Court to get the ball rolling to curb CO2 emissions. All was passed by congress. The public was well aware of it. A Washington Post article from 2007 is a reminder that the Supreme Court ruled against the Bush EPA for NOT regulating emissions. . So how is standing legislation reduced to “back door” politics in just 3 years?

The “back door” tactics should be assigned to Murkowski. She openly stated her concerns for her state being ravaged by climate change in a speech in 2006, but by the end of 2009, Murkowski’s standards changed dramatically. An article titled: “Lisa Murkowski proposes to fiddle while Alaska burns” puts it nicely.

Ignoring Alaskan fires are just the tip of the iceberg so to speak. Last week ended with 12-20 ft. waves around Ventura, CA, while mudslides wiped out homes in an area still expecting 3″ of rain along with coastal funnels, 14 tornadoes ripped through Texas in the dead of winter, ice storms ran throughout the Midwest snapping power lines, and the south was expecting heavy storms with possible tornadoes. And I blogged that the earthquake that crushed Haiti was a big one, part of a series of activity that went up and down our California coastline. Yeah it’s a real good time to waylay the EPA from acting to regulate emissions that may be exacerbating our climate problems.

Murkowski fails to connect the dots. But why? My guess is that the coal industry can buy more time for permits and be exempt from future regulations once permitted because another Republican senator changed the language in the Senate Climate Change Bill that would allow these exemptions. Covering the coal industry is key here although Murkowski likes to upset the little guy arguing that EPA regulations will hurt small industry, farms, and such in bad economic times. Gaining momentum depends on getting the little guy on her side. The big guys are already there.

More than just there, two lobbyists for the coal industry wrote Murkowski’s amendment. Murkowski admitted to it. .

Lovely. The media hardly mentions Murkowski’s attempt to usurp the judicial branch’s directive, and consequently deny the power of the Clean Air Act, let alone let us know that the coal industry wrote this legislation. This comes on the heels of our Supreme Court’s ruling that corporations can openly support or oppose candidates running in our legislature.

Heck between writing legislation and buying the candidate, I’d say the wealthy (corporate America) have indeed taken over.


The Bush EPA


4 thoughts on “Murkowski Amendment to Thwart EPA Was Written by Coal Lobbyists; Come On!

  1. I’ll say this to everyone who haas a problem with corparations putting
    money into campains. Money does not effect my vote and I’m ver certian it has no effect on yours….so why are you concerned about corparate money in campains if it has no effect on your vote or mine? Its will be good for the economy as more dollars will be spent on advertising.

    Bear in mind that “corporate America” is most of us. Meaning its who you and I work for. I have 6 brothers and sisters…all but one work for a large public company. (the other owns his own) In our family “corporate America” is the norm….how about yours? I also don’t think any of us considers them evil on payday…

  2. That is what I have against your way of thinking. It’s very self centered. That is not a good trait and part of the problem within a country that struggles with unity. When I vote, I vote for the majority of people in the U.S. I thought that was the right thing to do all along. My thinking about voting certainly embodies the idea of the people, by the people, and for the people, as well as, give me your tired and poor far better than “why should I care if someone else doesn’t have healthcare.” That is outright greedy and not for the good of all. Corporate America is not in the same context to mean “people” simply because corporate America packs far more money and clout than the average voter even en mass. Corporate America has enough money to further deceive and stall. The perceived dog and pony show of elections will escalate and only serve to confuse people further. And confusion is what I am watching create greater divides, and greater hatred in America. Anyone that wants to label your kind of attitude white hat is fake.

  3. I’ve answered everything you’ve ever dished out. The only real reason I answered you in the first place is to give anyone paying attention reasonable answers and reputable website links for the same old accusations you were slinging. People can formulate their own opinion from there. Like I said, I’ve given you enough answers, you just didn’t comprehend that you were answered, but others will. Thanks.

  4. Pingback: Clean Air Under Attack; Bill Written by Lobbyists May Come Up for Vote This Week « Our World and Everything in It

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>