Quote of the day, from Rick Boucher, Democratic Congressman from West Virginia:
“[Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)] regulation of greenhouse gases would be the worst outcome for the coal industry and coal-related jobs. Our bill [to block EPA regulation for two years] is a responsible, achievable approach which prevents the EPA from enacting regulations that would harm coal and gives Congress time to establish a balanced program.”
We are definitely facing an uphill battle here. Back in 2009, Boucher voted in favour of the Waxman-Markey climate change bill, which sought to create a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases.
If the EPA hands are tied while we wait for the Senate to pass a climate change bill, we are in some serious doo-doo.
“During the meeting, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) did not let it go unnoticed that he was the only coal-state senator in the room.
“I made very clear to the president and my colleagues that what we need is an energy policy that protects West Virginians, creates jobs and stimulates the economy, and that means investing in clean coal technology,” Rockefeller, the Commerce Committee chairman, said.
And manufacturing state senators made their pitch for a bill that compensates energy-intensive industries like glass, aluminum and steel.”
Editorial
Something Worse Than Inaction
Published: March 12, 2010
The Obama administration has always had a backup plan in case Congress failed to pass a broad climate change bill. The Environmental Protection Agency would use its Clean Air Act authority to regulate greenhouse gases. Regulation, or the threat of it, would goad Congress to act or provide a backstop if it did not.
The House passed a bill last year seeking an economywide cap on emissions, but there has been no progress in the Senate. Now some senators seem determined to undercut the E.P.A.’s regulatory authority. These include not only Republicans who panic at any regulation, but also Democrats who say they worry about climate change but insist that the executive branch stand aside until Congress gets around to dealing with it.
The most destructive idea is a “resolution of disapproval†concocted by Lisa Murkowski, a Republican from Alaska. It would reject the E.P.A.’s recent scientific finding that greenhouse gases are a danger to public health and welfare, effectively repudiating the agency’s authority — granted to it by the Supreme Court — to regulate these gases. As a practical matter, it would also stop last year’s widely applauded agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks.
Ms. Murkowski has temporarily set aside her amendment while the Senate mulls a seemingly more benign bill from Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat. His bill does not tamper with the new rules on vehicle emissions or deny the E.P.A.’s legal authority to regulate greenhouse gases. But it would severely narrow the agency’s reach by blocking it from proposing, or even doing much work on, regulations on emissions from stationary sources like power plants, for two years while Congress worked on broader legislation.
Pingback: Obamacare and climate change