GOP Pushes Back on EPA Emission Regulation, Dem Climate Change Policy

Updated at 5:30 p.m. ET

As Democrats continue to deliberate their approach to energy and climate change policy, Republicans are pushing their own proposals for a different, more incremental course -- including a plan to block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.

The Senate is debating today a resolution from GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska that would stop the Obama administration's EPA from regulating emissions under the Clean Air Act.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that the EPA was obligated to decide whether carbon gas and other greenhouse gas emissions are a threat to human health and that the EPA has authority to regulate emissions. Murkowski and many other lawmakers, however, argue regulating emissions is the under the purview of Congress.

President Obama has said it would be preferable for Congress to pass climate change and energy legislation to regulate emissions but that the EPA should regulate emissions if Congress fails to act. The administration issued a statement of policy promising a veto of Murkowski's bill if it passes.

The bill, the statement says, "would undermine the administration's efforts to reduce the negative impacts of pollution and the risks associated with environmental catastrophes, like the ongoing BP oil spill."

However, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell charged that the administration opposes the bill because, "now that it's clear Congress won't pass this new national energy tax this year, the administration... is now trying to get done through the back door what they haven't been able to get through the front door."

Typically, with only 41 votes in the Senate, Republicans would need the support of numerous Democrats to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. However, Murkowski is using the Congressional Review Act to expedite her resolution, the Hill reports, which allows Congress to overturn executive branch regulations with a simple majority. Still, the measure is unlikely to pass in the House, and Republicans do not have the votes to overturn a veto.

It's unclear how today's debate in the Senate will turn out; some Democrats support Murkowski's measure. Today's vote is seen as something of a test as to where lawmakers stand on the general issue of climate change legislation.

The Democrats' main climate change bill, unveiled last month by Democratic Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) and Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.), lost some of its luster when Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) -- the one Republican backing the measure -- withdrew his support for it.

Meanwhile, Republican Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) put forward his own proposal for climate change legislation yesterday, which seeks to lower emissions and bring down energy use without creating a carbon market like the Kerry-Lieberman bill does. The bill requires higher vehicle mileage and increased use of alternative fuels, as well as greater efficiency in power generation and energy use in buildings. It does not include any mandatory emission reductions and falls short of the emissions reductions goals set by the administration.

Graham on Wednesday announced he would co-sponsor Lugar's proposal, even though just the day before, he told reporters that "nothing [with respect to energy] will get 60 votes," including Lugar's bill, Politico reports.

Democratic leaders are meeting later today to discuss energy and climate change, according to Politico. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said he wants a plan to move forward by next month.

Meanwhile, Mr. Obama is meeting this afternoon with business leaders like Microsoft founder Bill Gates to discuss energy reform.

UPDATE: The Senate today rejected Murkowski's proposal to stop the EPA from regulating emissions.

[Chris_VA]

Yeah they pushed back a little, and then promptly got pancaked by the Senate vote to kill the amendment. End of story; gee it must be a slow news day...

[nolieshere]

Take a look at the pictures coming out of the gulf. Dead fish and mammals, birds dripping with sludge, the thick goo washing up on pristine beaches.

That is the picture of the entire planet without government regulations on 'for profit' corporations.

Whether it is an insurance company, an oil company or any other corporation... if an extra dollar of profit can be realized by placing people and nature at risk, so be it.

Corporations have absolutely no concern (zip, zero, zilch) other than profit.

[starving1968-3]

by IndepTex20 June 10, 2010 2:33 PM EDT
by lodemidiquail June 10, 2010 2:30 PM EDT
Yes, the government shouldn't regulate anything...so far lack of regulation has crashed our financial market, crashed our economy, caused the largest environmental disaster in our country, screwed our housing market and brought our auto industry to the brink of bankruptcy.

Make no mistake, your federal government is to blame for all of those things you mentioned................that's right the federal government that forced their healthcare plan on us and hopefully the plan that can be recinded after November!






The federal government IS to blame for all of those things, because the republicans rescinded the government's oversight responsibilities, which is EXACTLY the reason why those things happened.

No oversight = DISASTER.

Thanks a lot republicans and conservatives!

[Billium1953]

So once again our Omnipotent Comrade Obama has determined that the people, through their elected representatives, are morons and he is the only power that can decide to take action. Action, by the way, supported by fake science and lies. Action that will not solve any environmental issues but will further consolidate power and control in the hands of socialists. This, like the health care disaster, is nothing of what it seems and is all about control of our lives.

[omega42]

So once again our Omnipotent Comrade Obama has determined that the people, through their elected representatives, are morons

--------------------------------------------------------

Not all people, just the ones that voted for Palin who can't seem to accept that she lost and move on. You can usually spot these "morons" by their references to "comrade Obama" and their incessant whining about socialism.

[starwanderer]

First a correction to the misperception that AIG owes 182.5 billion to taxpayers.. AIG had a line of credit plus loans totalling 182.5 but did not use the total line of credit. Obviously one does not owe for a line of credit not used. As of January, the actual owed amount was around 80 billion. Not good but more factually correct than the 182.5 billion number thrown around. They made a net profit of over a billion last year, so looks like payback will come albeit slower than it should come as they seem to be dragging their feet on liquidating profitable parts of the company to pay back the loans and interest faster. It is possible, however, that Treasury winds up making a profit on the AIG deals, as distasteful as all of this is.

Getting to the point of this article...

in light of AIG, the Gulf disaster, the banking fiasco (once again...third time in my lifetime), when are we going to stop government by corporations and start thinking about the people. We need a good energy bill and cap and trade. Without the government interference with enough of a stick to force corporate hands, they will poison us (look at the workers in the Gulf now), take all of our money (do you see anything the banks have done voluntarily to restrain themselves or protect the markets themselves by way of their own policies and practices?) and when we die, throw our corpses into a ditch behind the funeral home while pretending to bury us.

When are we going to learn that deregulation just means corporations do what they damn well please and what they damn well please is to bleed us to death, pollute if it saves them a dime, and pretend to care about employees while decreasing wages, working conditions and benefits whenever possible.

Just another example of what corporate money will do,. Government by the corporations for the corporations,. There is no longer even a pretense that this government is by the people for the people.

[davidjo12]

The U.S. Constitution states that "congress shall make all laws", however over the years congress has delegated that responsibility to a bunch of different agencies...(the EPA, BATF, DEA, to name a few) probably because they were too busy with important stuff. Now it seems that they don't like it so much. Well join the club. It is too bad that our useless supreme (and I use that term loosely) court refuses to do it's job and enforce the constitution rather than deferring to congress.

[IndepTex20]

by lodemidiquail June 10, 2010 2:30 PM EDT
Yes, the government shouldn't regulate anything...so far lack of regulation has crashed our financial market, crashed our economy, caused the largest environmental disaster in our country, screwed our housing market and brought our auto industry to the brink of bankruptcy.

Make no mistake, your federal government is to blame for all of those things you mentioned................that's right the federal government that forced their healthcare plan on us and hopefully the plan that can be recinded after November!

[djaymick]

We need to demand all the information that the EPA has on climate change. We know for fact that Lisa Jackson and the EPA quashed an endangerment study that disproved the findings from the climate change "experts". We have also seen stories about NASA and how they either manipulated the data or relied heavily on the UN IPCC "scientists" reports. Now that major parts of the last report have been disproven, it's time to reexamine the global warming (or whatever they are calling it now) science before draconian taxes are enforced.

[thebob-bob]

Does anyone remember polluted rivers on fire? People choking to death from pollution in L.A and other cities?? Do Republicans really thing that we should just let oil companies drill anywhere they want, however they want? Do they really think coal companies should be able to mine anywhere they want, however they want? Cars with no pollution controls? Food and Drug supplies un-monitored and checked??

Why do Republicans hate planet Earth?

[geo2009]

Drill baby, drill! The Republican mantra with regard to the environment seams to the "To HE.. with the future, give me mine now." I can not imagine where we will be if these rapacious brutes get back into power.

[velma179]

You don't have a lot of credibility as an expert.

Maybe using spell check could help...