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.” http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/01/murkowski-seeks-thwart-epa-emission-regulations-again.
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. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/02/AR2007040200487.html . 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. http://climateprogress.org/2009/09/21/lisa-murkowski-fiddle-while-alaksa-burns-epa-regulation/.
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. http://www.greendaily.com/2010/01/18/murkowski-partnered-with-big-coal-and-oil-lobbyists-to-attack-th/ .
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.