39 Senators Fighting to Stop EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Regulations

7 by Becky Striepe on February 16, 2010

senator_isakson
by Becky Striepe

Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski recently wrote a disapproval resolution to stop the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. I sent a letter to my Senator urging him to support a new Clean Air Act that regulates greenhouse gas emissions, and you can contact yours, too, until the end of this month.

Georgia Senator Isakson wrote me back last week, and his response was incredibly frustrating! I'm sharing it here, in full, because I think it's really important that we know where our elected decision-makers stand:

Dear Mrs. Striepe:

Thank you for contacting me regarding Senator Murkowski's disapproval resolution to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from regulation greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. I appreciate hearing from you and appreciate the opportunity to respond.

I recently joined 39 of my colleagues in co-sponsoring this bi-partisan disapproval resolution. This backdoor attempt to regulate greenhouse gasses would have dramatic negative effects on our manufacturing sector while also causing significant increases in the cost of power generation. While we should take proactive steps to reduce our emissions footprint, it is absolutely essential to address the economic impact of these measures on our economy.

On December 7, 2009, the EPA announced its finding that greenhouse gases threaten public health. The endangerment finding took effect on January 14, 2010, and clears the way for the EPA to present its first greenhouse gas rules by March 2010. I believe it is the responsibility of Congress to address the issue of climate change.

Upon introduction, a disapproval resolution is referred to the committee of jurisdiction, which in this case will be the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. If the committee does not favorably support the resolution within 20 calendar days, it may be discharged upon petition by 30 senators. Once a disapproval resolution is placed on the Senate calendar, it is then subject to expedited consideration on the Senate floor and is not subject to filibuster.

Thank you again for contacting me. Please visit my webpage at http://isakson.senate.gov/ for more information on the issues important to you and to sign up for my e-newsletter.

Sincerely,
Johnny Isakson
United States Senator

Backdoor attempt? As if this hasn't been all over the news? Language like that makes me furious, because it really makes it sound like this is some sort of lefty conspiracy. How exactly would he like to address climate change without addressing greenhouse gases?

I have a hard time believing that regulating greenhouse gases would have more of a negative effect than these harmful emissions themselves. Even if we take global warming out of the equation, these emissions damage the health of human beings, especially those living near facilities such as coal burning power plants. I'm appalled that Senator Isakson would put special interests like the coal lobby above the good of his constituency.

Wondering who the 39 senators are who've signed onto the disapproval? We've compiled a list for you! It's alphabetized by state:

Senator Richard Shelby, Alabama
Senator Jeff Sessions, Alabama
Senator Lisa Murkowski, Alaska
Senator John McCain, Arizona
Senator Jon Kyl, Arizona
Senator Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas
Senator George LeMieux, Florida
Senator Saxby Chambliss, Georgia
Senator Johnny Isakson, Georgia
Senator Mike Crapo, Idaho
Senator James E. Risch, Idaho
Sentaor Richard G. Lugar, Indiana
Senator Chuck Grassley, Iowa
Senator Sam Brownback, Kansas
Senator Pat Roberts, Kansas
Senator Mitch McConnell, Kentucky
Senator Jim Bunning, Kentucky
Senator Mary Landrieu, Louisiana
Senator David Vitter , Louisiana
Senator Roger Wicker, Mississippi
Senator Thad Cochran, Mississippi
Senator Kit Bond, Missouri
Senator Ben Nelson, Nebraska
Senator Mike Johanns, Nebraska
Senator Judd Gregg, New Hampshire
Senator Richard Burr, North Carolina
Senator George Voinovich, Ohio
Senator Tom Coburn, Oklahoma
Senator James Inhofe, Oklahoma
Senator Lindsey Graham, South Carolina
Senator John Thune, South Dakota
Senator Bob Corker, Tennessee
Senator Lamar Alexander, Tennessee
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison , Texas
Senator John Cornyn, Texas
Senator Bob Bennett, Utah
Senator Orrin Hatch, Utah
Senator Mike Enzi, Wyoming
Senator John Barrasso, Wyoming

Have you guys written your Senators to let them know how you feel? If you heard back, we'd love to know what they said! If you haven't had a chance to, Earth Justice makes i incredibly easy to get heard. You can send a letter through their site, and they get it to the right person for you!

Image Credit: Remixed Creative Commons photo by savannahgrandfather

Ruth Taylor

Dear Becky,

No offense, but you don’t understand this issue very well.

First, the “backdoor attempt” reference doesn’t have anything to do with this issue being “all over the news.” Senator Isakson is referring to something else with his “backdoor attempt” comment.

Here is the deal: Obama tried to get his Cap & Trade bill through the Congress, and the Senate will not put the bill through (more and more Democrats also oppose the bill). Because Congress would not put his bill through, Obama has chosen (he announced this publicly) to “go through the back door” and try to implement various parts of the (Cap & Trade) bill through his agencies (because he has control over his agencies since its members are appointed by him – rather than elected).

The EPA is only authorized to regulate greenhouse gasses at all because of a fairly new Supreme Court ruling – and that ruling was based on science which has since been very seriously questioned (many people would say it is discredited). I believe the Supreme Court will reverse that ruling fairly soon.

So, whether you agree with Obama or disagree with him – he is definitely going thought the back door – just as the Senator says. Obama and his supporters admit this themselves.

Second, you said, “Even if we take global warming out of the equation, these emissions damage the health of human beings, especially those living near facilities such as coal burning power plants.” Again, I think you are confused. Green House gasses do not damage health in any way. Even the proponents of regulating greenhouse gasses do not say that greenhouse gasses damage anyone’s health. If you take greenhouse gasses “out of the equation,” there are no health issues at all concerning greenhouse gasses. In fact, controlling greenhouse gasses takes money away from controlling the very things you are concerned about – such as keeping our air and water clean.

If you will research these issues you will see what I’m talking about. Please don’t write your senator urging him to do things that you are misinformed about. That hurts all of us.

Sincerely,
Ruth
Jean Mccarthy

Becky -

It looks like Ruth is NOT in favor of letting the EPA regulate C02, but I agree with you and I WANT the EPA to regulate it. Ruth is correct about her two main points, however. The “backdoor” comment that S.Isakson madewas not referring to what you thought it was, and also C02 does not hurt anyone’s health if you take global warming out of the picture.

I know you meant well with your letter, but maybe it would be good for you to inform yourself better about these things before you blog. As John Kennedy said, “The best advocate is an informed advocate,” and we who do believe in Cap & Trade need to have our members know what is going on -so that we don’t look bad to the other side.

- Jean
M. H.

The EPA gained the right to regulate Greenhouse Gas in the Supreme Court ruling of 2007, in a 5-4 decision, Massachusetts et al. v. EPA et al.

The Supreme Court based its decision on scientific conclusions that were established in an IPCC report which said that Greenhouse Gases had caused, and would continue to cause, such natural disasters as tornadoes and rising seas.

In the last few months it has come out that those IPCC Report conclusions (about Greenhouse Gas having caused natural disasters like tornadoes and rising seas etc.) were incorrect. The head of the IPCC has apologized for the inaccuracies. This undercuts the Supreme Court decision.

I’m sure the Supreme Court will be forced to withdraw its permission for the EPA to regulate Greenhouse Gas – since the science upon which it was based has been discredited.

Robert

M. H. – I have been reading about this that you are talking about. I used to believe global warming had caused many natural disasters and last week I found out the whole idea had been faked by the UN commission in order to scare people. I feel really betrayed.

This supreme court decision will definitely be changed, and the EPA will no longer be able to regulate Co2 even if it wants to. Plus this EPA regulation will hurt our economy very much.

http://ecopolitology.org/author/dave/ Dave Levitan

First of all, the science has not been remotely discredited, the IPCC mistakes were singular errors amidst an incredible mass of citations and data. There is literally NO change in scientific consensus as a result. The Supreme Court will not reverse their ruling, and have no reason to even consider doing so.

Second, to say that greenhouse gases have no negative health effects is ridiculous. First of all, take something like nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas — breathe that in and you will get high, until you suffocate. Fun. Also, there is ample evidence of widespread health effects of all greenhouse gases in the sense that their presence in the atmosphere will cause increased drought, rising sea levels, etc. These things DO endanger health, even though simply standing next to a pipe emitting carbon dioxide won’t really do much to you on a short time scale.

Finally, the EPA “backdoor” attempt to regulate won’t even affect all the same parts of greenhouse gas emissions that various proposed legislation would. It is primarily meant to regulate large new sources of emissions, which will basically require new factories and power plants to be more energy efficient and run cleaner.

Justin

No!! no discredit at all. They just change things, forget things, site things that aren’t true and known to be untrue. One of the leaders of the “science” (phi jones) didn’t just admit that there’s been no significant warming since 1995. 20 years of MIT studies haven’t shown that greenhouse trapping is insignificant, either, right? OH, how bout this one: If we stropped everything–eveyrhting went Fred Flinstone– for 30 years, in the event that man-made global warming was proven, we we not be able to avert a .6 degree increase in 100 years… source: MIT

It’s a conjured up crisis for power. I’m all for stewardship and care of the Planet, but come one.

Zach

Great commentary, Becky!

Thanks for the info on the Senators, too!

Good points concisely made. If people were interested in really evaluating the truth of the points, they would find out quickly that they were straight on.