AFF Sentinel Vol.7#6

In late January, Sen. Lisa Murkowski and 39 other senators from both parties introduced a Senate resolution disapproving the EPAs proposed rule finding greenhouse gases a danger to human health, requiring sweeping new EPA regulation of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases. Little publicity has been garnered by their S. J. Resolution 26. Few but green websites took note.

Congress can take direct action to prevent the EPA from imposing draconian new restrictions on any production industry using fossil fuels. But it took time for cap-and-trade legislation to be recognized for the economic disaster it is, based on a scientific global warming hoax. The reaction to the EPAs move is also coming slowly.

Murkowski had attempted to block EPAs efforts by putting amendments on other legislation. None of the efforts have yet succeeded.

The Senate has refused to even consider the cap- and-trade bill that would create a system of restrictions and permits on carbon emissions. President Obama had counted on that system to raise hundreds of millions of dollars for his programs by requiring production industries like agriculture, manufacturing, energy, electricity generation and transportation to buy emission credits in order to continue production. Yet Congress has not acted to stop the EPA from imposing restrictions and fines by fiat. Harry Reid has expressed opposition to restricting EPA.

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer opposed Murkowskis resolution, saying Congress should not be in the business of reversing scientific and health findings by federal agencies... Boxer obviously has ignored the implosion of much of the science underlying the entire climate change hoax, upon which government agencies like EPA had built their authority to regulate.

On the House side, House Agriculture Committee Collin Peterson (D-MN.), Rep. Ike Skelton, (D-MO) and Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO) introduced an identical disapproval resolution to S.J. 26 in February. The same trio actually introduced a bill (HR 4572-Feb. 2, 2010) to amend the Clean Air Act by excluding carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride from the list of air pollutants covered by the law. The bill has been referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

The problem is committee leadership. Both the House Energy committee (Rep. Henry Waxman ) and the Senate Environment Committee (Sen. Barbara Boxer) are chaired by California ultra-liberals with no understanding of business. Boxer has been working with Sen. John Kerry trying to get some form of cap- and-trade legislation through the Senate. However, polling has shown Boxer vulnerable in this falls elections. Waxman represents the liberal greater Hollywood district and is unlikely to feel threatened.

The EPA has evidently felt some pressure from Congressmen, industry and constituents but only on the basis of large costs and job losses during a recession, not the basis of false science or their authority to regulate. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson recently announced a delay in regulations for large emitters like power plants and oil refineries until 2011.

But new rules for cars and small trucks are due this month. New rules regarding what stationary sources will be regulated and when are due in April. Jackson also said the thresholds will likely be higher than those originally proposed (EPA Delays Emissions Regulations, Wall Street Journal, 02/23/10).

But no mention was made regarding EPAs actual authority to regulate. And eight Senate Democrats who wrote to Jackson protesting regulations only mentioned costs in dollars and jobs.

The states have expressed two positions, so far: delay and defend. State regulators have urged the EPA to delay regulations, fearing being swamped with applications and paperwork they arent ready to handle.

But 16 state attorney generals, led by Martha Coakley from Massachusetts, whom Scott Brown defeated for the Massachusetts Senate seat, have filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit NCBA and industry groups have filed against EPA. (States Seek to Join Endangerment Finding Lawsuit, eNewsUSA, 1/26/10.)

We are confident that the Court will uphold the EPAs action and that the EPA will press forward with its plan to begin regulation of greenhouse gaseswe firmly believe that the EPA has an important role to play, whether or not Congress acts and we cannot afford to wait.

It would appear that the states EPA departments are salivating at the prospect of new business and revenue, given time to prepare.

It will take voter encouragement to Murkowski, Peterson, et al and pressure on members of Congress to put the brakes on EPA.

To take advantage of this special offer for our readers, click on the ad, go to "Subscribe," and then after submitting your information, enter "Freedom" in the code box.

Email your comments to the author

{mos_sb_discuss:08}