Senate showdown over EPA power grab; Update: Murkowski resolution fails, 47-53
Scroll for updates…
I’m still on my family vacation, but wanted to pop in to spotlight today’s important Senate battle over the EPA war on carbon. It’s a subject we’ve covered here over the past year (reminders here and here that opposition to the Obama regulatory power grab is crossing party lines).
The Hill reports on Senate Democrats scrambling to control the damage:
Democratic leaders are scrambling to prevent the Senate from delivering a stinging slap to President Barack Obama on climate change.
They have offered a vote on a bill they dislike in the hopes of avoiding a loss on legislation Obama hates.
The president is threatening to veto a resolution from Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) that would ban the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating carbon emissions.
But if the president were forced to use his veto to prevent legislation emerging from a Congress in which his own party enjoys substantial majorities, it would be a humiliation for him and for Democrats on Capitol Hill.
The Senate GOP conference blasted the economic impact of the EPA overreach:
More info and ways to get involved at Freedom Action.
Freedom Action urges Senators to vote Yes on Thursday on S.J. Res. 26, Senator Lisa Murkowski’s Resolution of Disapproval of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Endangerment Finding. Senate passage of the Murkowski Resolution will be the first step in stopping EPA from using the Clean Air Act to regulate the economy into stagnation. This is a key vote that will have a major impact on Americans’ future living standards.
Senators who vote No on the Murkowski Resolution are voting for a regulatory train wreck that will result in much higher energy prices, less money in consumers’ pockets to spend on other things, and lost jobs in manufacturing industries that will lose competitiveness from higher energy costs. It is therefore critically important for the Senate to pass the Murkowski Resolution on Thursday and begin the process of taking back Congress’s authority from an out-of-control EPA.
As I’ve noted before, it’s the Obama eco-appartchiks who are the real public danger and whose regulatory emissions must be contained.
***
Flashback: EPA plays hide and seek; suppressed report revealed
Related: EPA lawyers: Cap-and-trade bill is “fatally flawed”
***
GOP Sen. James Inhofe:
The debate over the Murkowski resolution began even before the resolution was introduced in January. It really began 11 years ago, when the International Center for Technology Assessment, along with 18 other organizations, petitioned EPA to regulate greenhouse gases from cars and trucks under the Clean Air Act.
That petition went to then-EPA Administrator Carol Browner, but she never acted on it. And that was really no surprise, considering the US Senate, just two years earlier, voted 95 to 0 against the ruinous Kyoto Protocol.
So the decision on the petition carried over into the Bush Administration. In 2003, the Bush EPA denied the petition, which prompted a predictable raft of lawsuits by some states and environmental groups.
The case-called Massachusetts v. EPA-made its way to the Supreme Court, which in 2007 ruled that CO2 is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, and that EPA must make a fundamental decision: either greenhouse gases from cars and trucks “endanger” public health and welfare or they don’t; or the science is so uncertain that it can’t make a decision either way.
The clock ran out on the Bush Administration, so this critical question of “endangerment” under the Clean Air Act carried over into the Obama Administration. In December last year, to no one’s surprise, the Obama EPA decreed that there is in fact endangerment.
This decision has far-reaching implications for how we use energy, how this country is governed, how businesses are regulated and controlled, and how we conduct our daily lives.
Make no mistake: despite testimony to the contrary by senior officials, the Obama Administration was not forced by the Supreme Court to choose endangerment. As I noted, they had a choice, and they made the wrong choice. They chose to make an endangerment finding based on the flawed scientific conclusions of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC.
By now everyone in this body is familiar with the work of the IPCC. This is the UN body that represents-at least according to some-the so-called “scientific consensus” that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing catastrophic climate change. But the Climategate scandal shattered the consensus once and for all.
I won’t delve into great detail about this episode. In a report released earlier this year, the Minority Staff of the Senate EPW Committee found that Climategate scientists tried to manipulate key temperature datasets to predetermined conclusions about climate change.
Climategate scientists-again, these are no ordinary scientists; they are supposedly the best and brightest of the climate community-refused to share their work with those who disagreed with it; they undermined peer-review by blocking publication of legitimate work by skeptics; and they trashed the reputations of anyone who dared question their findings.
An independent inquiry conducted by the UK’s Information Commissioner concluded that the scientists employed by the University of East Anglia, and who were at the center of the Climategate controversy, violated the UK’s Freedom of Information Act.
The Climategate scandal forced open the inner sanctums of the IPCC, and the public finally saw the political science the body had produced. I could go on for hours on the embarrassing litany of errors and mistakes, but I won’t; it’s not necessary. We don’t need to debate science on the floor today. There are varying opinions about what the science is telling us even in the Republican Conference. I accept that and respect my colleagues who differ with me.
What’s important today is focusing on where we agree. And we agree that EPA regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act is a monumental mistake that will shackle the American economy with job-killing regulations and higher energy taxes.
Let me be blunt: EPA’s growing regulatory regime will lead to one of the greatest bureaucratic intrusions into the lives of the American people. Peter Glaser, an attorney with Troutman Sanders, and one of the foremost Clean Air Act attorneys in the country, said that EPA’s endangerment finding will lead to federal regulation of schools, hospitals, nursing homes, commercial buildings, churches, restaurants, hotels, malls, colleges and universities, food processing facilities, farms, sports arenas, soda manufacturers, bakers, brewers, wineries, and many others.
Imagine heading to church on Sunday to find the doors locked because it couldn’t afford to install Best Available Control Technology on its boiler. Of course EPA dismisses this and similar examples as nothing more than empty scare tactics. Besides, they contend, we exempted those facilities in our tailoring rule-that’s right, they’re out, so don’t worry.
EPA fails to mention that the Clean Air Act contains very specific emissions thresholds for regulated pollutants, and CO2 will be “subject to regulation” starting January 2, 2011. Under a program to maintain air quality, facilities that emit more than 250 tons per year of a given pollutant must obtain a Prevention of Significant Deterioration, or PSD, permit before they can build or make major modifications to existing facilities.
As I noted, 250 tons is a big number for traditional pollutants such as SO2 or NOx. But not for CO2. A large commercial building, for example, emits about 100,000 tons of CO2 a year. We’re talking about 6 million sources potentially subject to EPA regulation.
To get around this unmitigated administrative and economic disaster, EPA just changes the rules. That’s right: it merely decreed that regulations would apply only to facilities that emit more than 100,000 tons starting next year. That threshold would be tweaked over time and apply to sources at differing stages. But the point is clear: EPA can’t just change the unambiguous intent of Congress. 250 tons is 250 tons.
So don’t be fooled: EPA can’t wave away inconvenient provisions in the Clean Air Act with a regulatory wand. EPA’s so-called tailoring rule is now the focus of 14 lawsuits. It seems almost certain that the DC Circuit will overturn it and force EPA to grapple with the regulatory nightmare of its own creation.
Again, I warn those who take comfort in the exemptions provided in the tailoring rule. Those exemptions will be short-lived, for the simple reason that the courts will strike it down. And even if they don’t, EPA has committed to eventually lower the thresholds to capture small sources. So one way or another, if you think you’re out, it’s likely at some point you’ll be in.
What are the economic impacts? We’re just getting a handle on them. According to EPA’s own documents, PSD permits cost an average of $125,120 and impose a burden of 866 hours on the applicant. In addition, the nation largest employers, such as refineries, electric utilities and industrial manufacturing facilities, will be forced to install (currently undefined) best available control technology (BACT) at their plants to reduce CO2.
This requirement is creating uncertainty, and employers are reluctant to hire and expand, until this mess is sorted out. And don’t forget about the prospect of lawsuits. I’ll bet the farm environmental groups fan out across the country and sue facilities they don’t like. None of this can be good for those out of work and looking for a job.
The tailoring rule is one reason some may choose to vote against the Murkowski resolution. There are other stated reasons for opposition that I want to address, because I believe they are pretexts that can’t justify opposition to this resolution.
I mentioned the science supporting the endangerment finding-some will argue today that overturning the finding through the Congressional Review Act amounts to an indictment of the IPCC- backed scientific consensus. But let’s understand what’s at issue here: we are stopping EPA from undertaking the most unprecedented bureaucratic intrusion into the lives of the American people.
Frankly, one’s view of the science here is irrelevant. As Marlo Lewis of the Competitive Enterprise Institute has noted, Congress is removing the legal force and effect of the endangerment finding. The resolution says nothing about the reasoning EPA employed, or the substance of that reasoning, to reach the scientific conclusions supporting the endangerment finding. So opposing the Murkowski resolution because you oppose overturning science is not a legitimate basis of opposition.
Another excuse for voting against the resolution is that overturning endangerment will mean removing the authority of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to set Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards (CAFE). More specifically, some argue, it would undo the historic auto deal reached last May between the auto companies, the White House, EPA, DOT, and California. The only problem with this argument is that it’s wrong.
Just ask the Obama Administration. “As a strictly legal matter,” according to a February 19 letter by Kevin Vincent, NHTSA’s general counsel, “the Murkowski resolution does not directly impact NHTSA’s 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).”
So we’re hearing that this resolution will revoke the new CAFE standards and increase the amount of oil we consume. It’s patently false to assert NHTSA can’t continue to work on, and then implement, the CAFE standards Congress passed in 2007. That’s what it’s doing now, and will continue to do regardless of what happens here today.
I hope that what happens here is that we vote to overturn EPA’s endangerment finding. If we don’t, that doesn’t mean we stop here. We will continue to pursue all of our options to stop, delay, and obstruct EPA from overtaking our nation’s energy sector and directing and controlling the minutiae of our daily lives.
***
Update 4:30pm Eastern. The Murkowski resolution to stop the EPA power grab failed on a 47-53 vote.
The 6 Dems who voted with Rs to try and head off the eco-usurpation…
Landrieu, Lincoln, B. Nelson, M. Pryor, Bayh, Rockefeller.
Remember in November.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Jaczko the Jerk: Harry Reid’s sexist crony gets the boot
May 23, 2012 05:15 AM by Michelle Malkin
31 CommentsWhite House lied, jobs died
May 11, 2012 09:49 AM by Michelle Malkin
102 CommentsDrilling moratorium probe update: Green stonewallers caught red-handed
May 10, 2012 04:37 PM by Michelle Malkin
44 CommentsHillary Clinton convinces China to allow dissident and family to accompany her back to the US join ‘Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves’
May 5, 2012 11:17 AM by Doug Powers
34 Comments
Tens of thousands to fly to Rio to discuss how to limit greenhouse gas emissions
May 3, 2012 07:03 PM by Doug Powers
51 Comments
Obama energy solutions: Chicken crap is the new algae
April 30, 2012 01:13 PM by Michelle Malkin
145 Comments
EPA’s “Crucify them” guy throws himself under the bus
April 30, 2012 12:41 PM by Michelle Malkin
60 Comments
Fox Sports baseball analyst does Al Gore a solid during MLB broadcast
April 29, 2012 10:49 AM by Doug Powers
61 Comments
Categories: cap and trade,Enviro-nitwits
JustOneMinute
» Mama Also Said There Be Days Like ThisPundit & Pundette
» Patterico's chilling account of harassment
Digging themselves a bigger hole? Why doesn’t it surprise me that they can’t vote on something based on its merit?
“I can see November from my house”
The EPA is unconstitutional. If those tyrant pigs insist on banning Carbon, Congress should zero out their budget.
Here’s where you seperate the real enviro-nazis from the PC carbon crowd. The latter wants to by gas for their cars and energy for their houses at a reasonable price, and are the clear majority.
The EPA needs to prove that carbon is a danger, not just say so, which can’t be done.
Ditto what you said! The EPA needs to be dismantled now!
The EPA is so brilliant, they have to do an environmental impact study on the sand bars Jindal wanted to put up to stop the oil from hitting the shore. I just can’t seem to wrap my mind around that.
More treachery. And I agree with Swede…the EPA needs to PROVE that carbon is harmful to the environment. I have heard over and over how bad carbon is. And that we need to buy carbon credits. But I have not heard a word about WHY carbon is bad. Can anyone answer that?? Are people just following along like sheep because manbearpig says so? WHERE.IS.THE.PROOF?
From Wiki…
Q.Is carbon dangerous to the environment?
A. Every living thing is made of carbon! It is not fully understood how carbon dioxide in the atmosphere contributes to the earth’s climate, but higher levels of carbon dioxide seem to coincide with warmer temperatures (whether the carbon dioxide causes the warming or is a product of warming is not understood). (emphasis mine)
And for this we are trying to bankrupt the world and make manbearpig a billionaire??? Huh???
The EPA, along with the MSM and other dated and biased cable “science” programming, couldn’t get over with half they do if we’d a science literate nation than one that knows more about the mating habits of sea turtles and that electric cars “just run” off nothing.
James Greenidge
Queens NY
EPA wasn’t up to dealing with the oil spill. I doubt that it can deal with carbon enforcement. When employees have extensive job security, they will take incompetence to a fine science. The motto “Close enough for government work” hardly promotes excellence. It’s time for pink slips.
I agree that EPA should be forced to prove that carbon emissions are harmful.
Unfortunately, the law doesn’t require that. The law allows EPA to regulate CO2 emissions if the administrator simply determines that CO2 is harmful.
I’ll grab the exact language of the law.
I am sure I have a different perspective on this as most here, but for informational purposes, this is not the only EPA power grab working its way through Congress right now.
I attended a conference last week on the upcoming Toxic Substances Controls Act overhaul. We were given a chart showing the current law compared to the current House and Senate bills.
Whether or not you believe it is ultimately necessary or good, the amount of new power given to the EPA to force much greater safety testing and disclosure by chemical manufacturers and to force chemicals off the market that don’t meet these standards, is staggering.
Besides the fact there is no credible scientific data to support the premise being regulated by Global Warming, there is a second issue.
This is a huge issue in terms of separation of powers. The Democrats in Congress are still members of that branch of government. Do they intend to allow this continued concentration of power in the Executive Branch at the expense of their branch?
I think letting it happen because “your guy” is the President right now is not basis I would use for that decision.
I concur Chap. That is the core issue here.
Another example of the enviro-nuts wanting to shoot themselves in the foot …
Consider this all of you EPA zealots …
CO2 is what you exhale with every breath you take …
CO2 is taken in by trees and other plant life and absorbed …
That absorbed CO2 is then used by the trees and plants and through photosynthesis they produce Oxygen back into the atmosphere … in essence cleaning the carbon from the air leaving oxygen for all of us to breathe …
So it only makes sense that if the tree-huggers succeed in eliminating CO2 in the air the trees they so love will die off … there will be no photosynthesis cleaning carbon from the air … without the carbon the trees can’t survive … without the oxygen the rest of us can’t survive …
Talk about “unintended consequences” …
Defund the EPA. Congress should make basic rules for the states to follow and let the states manage it on their own.
The EPA is nothing more than another branch of tyranny.
Just ask Dr. McCoy. We are carbon based life forms (unlike the Horta of Janus VI which is silicon based)
Sorry, the anal editor in me is coming out. Spell check: apparatchik
So, they’re TREE HATERS!
You are more fun when being contrarian, but thanks for the unique insight. We have come a long way since Love Canal and the Bhopal disaster, but who will regulate the regulators? Eliminating risk in everything from chemical manufacture to drilling for oil is impossible, yet these things are necessary to society. What are “acceptable risks?”
Every time an airliner crashes, air travel becomes safer via investigation and implementation of new safety regs – but the only way to achieve 100% safety would be to eliminate air travel, or make it so expensive no one would use it.
Ah, the EPA another brain storm idea initiated by that president that was not a crook, his words, not mine, but politely resigned from office. After of course “opening the doors to China” that worked out real well for us. Along with initiating food stamps program…he was a conservative, no wait he was a Republican.
cify
Anyone here read Brian Sussman’s “Climategate”? It pretty much blows the CO2 climate change scam out of the water. Should be required reading by the EPA and the Senators trying to rein them in.
Off topic, but it appears that Congress is also trying to lift the ban on abortions in the military overseas:
Put the computer down and slowly step away…..
Out of all the comments above, none have keyed in on the continuing attack on our economy. This is just the latest step.
Then you’ve got Iran, Israel, Greece, N. Korea and others on the international scene, the continual march in Washington to kill jobs and strangle business and its causing me to lose what’s left of my sparse hair.
Yesterday I instructed our financial advisor to get out of everything that’s not a consumable such as P&G, Kraft, General Mills, Kimberly-Clark and buy gold and silver stocks in all our accounts. I may be labelled a “Gloomy Gus”, but if I’m right that a crash of major proportions is coming I’ll have the last laugh. Thoughts? Comments?
Don’t insult McCoy with that question. He’s a doctor, not a brick layer.
I think that it would hardly be a laughing matter. Perhaps, rather than having the last laugh, you should stare solemnly into the distance and let the first tear roll down your cheek. Like this guy.
Better late than never (gold).
…who of course wasn’t actually a “Native American”…
I’d say “Looney” rather than “Gloomy”. As I recall, gold hit $900 in ’81 when Jimmeh Peanut-head was running the economy into the ground, then started its long steady decline to $300 in ’01 as the economy recovered. History is a succession of recession and recovery, with gold prices inversely related to the economy. You are now liquidating and buying gold at an all time high of $1200? Good luck, champ. Barry is already on his way to the door and the this country has survived and thrived through far worse than this HopeyChangey Bozo.
Like leisure suits.
I’ve already done the crying thing. Now is the time to think of survival.
Mr. Obama will veto their disapproval, should it pass. This appears to be another anti-science ploy from the policital right and fossil fuel democrats to drag us further into our bad habit of supporting industry freeloaders so energy prices seem low.
Then you should read “The Road” by Cormac McCarthy. It is full of useful survival hints and overall good cheer to compliment your laughing.
(Spock mind-melding with the Horta) Pain!
Like I said, I’d love to be proven wrong and that this current situation will resolve itself, but I have 0% confidence.
I did buy some Kruggerands during the oil embargo and later sold them for a nice profit. As for the cyclical nature of stocks/gold/markets, yep, I’ve watched over the past few months the steady decline of the value of our investments and figured that the bottom is nowhere in sight. All it’s going to take is for Kim Il Jung to decide that he wants to go out in a blaze of glory or Israel to decide that it doesn’t want to commit suicide and you can call me “Looney” all you want.
IIRC, McCoy used a trowel to spackle some silcone poltice on the poor injured glob.
Did you notice the meteoric increase in them in the year preceding the last few months?
June 10th, 2010 at 1:54 pm, chapoutier said:
Then you should read “The Road” by Cormac McCarthy. It is full of useful survival hints and overall good cheer to compliment your laughing.
I’ll bet none of those teach you how to spit and roast a — well, I’d hate to spoil it for you.
The EPA and Consumer Products Safety Commission are taking the UN’s Agenda 21 and implementing it on a fast track.
It is unbelievable the power that has been given these two agencies since Barry Soetoro was installed as Dictator.
Of course, both agencies are unconstitutional but nobody in Congress seems to care that the illegal UN is calling the shots.
When did Congress vote to give the EPA almost unlimited power over our lives using the Toxic Substances Control Act?
Dateline 1930′s. Depression drags on, no end in sight. Germany is threatening all of Europe. Japan threatens the Eastern hemisphere. All is lost.
I appologize for using the term “looney”. The difference is I believe the US will survive and thrive – always has, always will – and your pessimism is likely to cost you in the long run.
The thing that worries me most is that I am agreeing completely with chap today, so I fear I may be losing what little sanity I had left. Let’s talk Tort Reform.
The biggest unconstitutional “power grab” of all…
Non-sequitur… I’ve watched values rise and fall over the years, always with faith that the ‘system’ would eventually prevail.
No longer. There are too many adverse events – worldwide and domestically – to ignore.
Obama loves a good power grab. Even if it’s an indirect grab via the EPA.
Hey, the more I look at Obama, the more I think he looks like the evil power thirsty character Apophis from Stargate SG-1. But more than the physical similarities is the way Obama and this fictional character want to be in control of everything.
Just an aside….
What, exactly, is your definition of “prevail”? It sounds like you simply dislike volatility.
But it’s your money. Knock yourself out.
The amendment just failed, 47-53. Democrats are totally feckless creatures.
Can we skip to November?
So they let a few dems vote “Yes” to save their hides with their constituents, but not enough for it to pass. Looks familiar to previous votes. If they say they are dems they are dems and should not be applauded unless they change party.
Explain to me how anyone could vote away their own power, especially in Washington.
For the “We didn’t do it, the EPA did” avoidance of accountability factor.
Agreed. The demos have just endorsed the assertion that exhaling = polluting the air. Hopefully, not only will this hurt them badly in November, it should also give more ammunition to an effort to kill the EPA.
OT: It’s my understanding that the Palins are also RV’ing right now. Any chance of an überfun/übercool Malkin/Palin RV rendezvous?
OK…. if 6 Dems crossed… that means some Repubs voted FOR this thing…
Who were they?
FWIW, Arthur Laffer agrees with you. His oped in the WSJ last week forecasts a major downturn when all of the tax increases hit in January.
Doh,,,, belay my last… math challenged today…
This summer cold is making me crazy. My last was referring to:
Maybe you missed the meteoric fall that preceded that rise. We’re still well below pre-collapse levels. Anyway, that still is no reason not to take profits and get out now if you’re expecting another similar crash. Some are guessing market up, some are guessing market down, and some are going to be right.
He also said this in 2006:
Elaine Garzarelli’s reputation was made for years because she called one market turn. She sort of disappeared when she missed a couple. I’m not saying Laffer’s right or wrong, just that he’s also predicting a major downturn due to the impending tax increases.
Chap, my definition of “prevail” has to do with the distinct anti-business climate that Obama has engineered.
Volatility is a lot like being in a boat riding the waves…sometimes you rise up, other times you drop down. It’s all OK unless you get seasick.
I see a whirlpool ahead and I don’t want to get sucked into it. Once the crash starts, you ain’t getting out of it with any assets.
Those are fake “yeses” to make them look good. They would have voted no if necessary. Democrats are scum.
So, boob implants in other words?
Every vote is a nail in their coffins. We’ll remember in Nov. Every Nov.
Smartest woman in the Senate speaks…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJJB7zFsFFE
Wait a minute. This guy Salazar is doctoring reports that 3rd parties are apparently put their signature on. Reports that guide policy decisions.
What the hell ISN’T an act of fraud in the Obama White House?????
Here’s more….
Salazar lied.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHQn0E31D2M
something to make you day a little better…
Sonofdy, it’s good to hear from you!
I assume those are your twins? Very cute video.
***** Huge Red Flags!!! *****
Video of Meg Whitman saying she is a “Big fan of Van Jones”!
(And she went on a “Climate Cruise” with him)
***** Huge Red Flags!!! *****
Thanks for saving me the time to look up what I thought I learned in H.S. Biology.
If you want to get technical, oxygen is the actual polluting gas. Plants first used CO2 and released O2 into the atmosphere. Animals came along and used the “waste product” of plants to breathe, returning CO2 back.
Yeah, but they only had a two day head start on the animals, so there couldn’t have been too much damage done in any case, right?
True, but understand, back then, the Algore and Boxer plants raised such a fuss over the amount of polluting CO2 being spilled into the atmosphere, the UN plants passed a resolution making the way for animals to be created to use the gas.