Hot on HuffPost:

See More Stories

Senate Votes Not to Block EPA on Greenhouse Gas Limits

1 year ago
  0 Comments Say Something  »
Text Size
In a close call for the environmental movement, the Senate refused to go along with an Alaskan senator's bid to block the EPA from limiting greenhouse gas emissions under authority of the existing Clean Air law.

The 53-47 vote Thursday not to rein in the Obama administration agency cheered enviros but disappointed energy state senators, who fear the EPA, on its own, will impose rules restricting carbon dioxide and other pollutants at coal-fired power plants, oil refineries and some manufacturing facilities. The impact, they say, would also curb mining and other production activities. "Politically accountable members of the House and Senate, not unelected bureaucrats , must develop our nation's energy and climate policies," said the sponsor, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), according to the Washington Post.
Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski
But at the White House, President Obama praised the Senate majority for "rejecting the resolution put forward by Sen. Murkowski, which would have increased our dependence on oil by blocking efforts to cut the harmful pollution that contributes to climate change." He said the vote was a reminder of the "urgent need" for Congress to pass broad energy legislation dealing with global warming.

Six Democrats broke ranks -- among them Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) -- and voted with Republicans for the Murkowski measure. The EPA's proposed pollution rules could take effect next year.

Our New Approach to Comments

In an effort to encourage the same level of civil dialogue among Politics Daily’s readers that we expect of our writers – a “civilogue,” to use the term coined by PD’s Jeffrey Weiss – we are requiring commenters to use their AOL or AIM screen names to submit a comment, and we are reading all comments before publishing them. Personal attacks (on writers, other readers, Nancy Pelosi, George W. Bush, or anyone at all) and comments that are not productive additions to the conversation will not be published, period, to make room for a discussion among those with ideas to kick around. Please read our Help and Feedback section for more info.

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum Comment Moderation Enabled. Your comment will appear after it is cleared by an editor.

18 Comments

Filter by:
grayfox994

I think we should designate one day and one day only when fuels such as oil, coal, gas or their derivatives or nuclear fuel could not be used provide energy to the entire U.S., only photovoltaic cells and wind turbines..Imagine the fun then!!!

June 11 2010 at 11:31 AM Report abuse +5 rate up rate down Reply
Beautiful

This is just a way for the left to push climate change legislation without that pesky thing called Congress! They sure wouldn't want an honest debate on the facts. I thought the left was going to restore science to it's proper place. Is refusing to show the need for such legislation helping this? No, it doesn't, as science would prove the need for more study and understanding of reality.

June 11 2010 at 11:04 AM Report abuse +8 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Beautiful's comment
namingway2

If Congress will not implement legislation to address carbon emissions then the EPA will do so under existing law. This isn't the EPA circumventing congress. This is congress incapable of addressing the topic due to political gridlock.

June 11 2010 at 12:30 PM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply
muffin83e

Democrats supposedly "breaking ranks" means nothing when Dems are a majority. This is just CYA for the fall elections so they can claim they opposed it.

June 11 2010 at 10:40 AM Report abuse +8 rate up rate down Reply
enorcel

The passage of this Bill means....a lower standard of living for us...and lower productivity for the USA..... Wind Power now provides only 2-3% of our energy needs and solar power about 2%....that's a lot of wind mills and solar panels to make up for the oil we will not be using.....That's OK... because China, India, Brazil and Russia will be glad to pick up the oil slack and use the oil that we don't want to use....and by the way, our nation will diminish in the opportunities it used to supply its citizens since our over-all productivity will be slowed down significantly...

June 11 2010 at 10:38 AM Report abuse +9 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to enorcel's comment
namingway2

Which is exactly what was said when the clean air act passed. Which is what was said with the ADA established OSHA.

Regulation doesn't kill business. Business has always found ways to thrive inspite of regulation.

June 11 2010 at 12:32 PM Report abuse -3 rate up rate down Reply
ettu

Never forget the arrogance with which the EPA announced they would force their absurd agenda on the people, if Congress did not. Just asking, but where has the EPA been throughout this disaster hitting the southern states. Haven't heard much, if anything, from them. This is where EPA should be visible, not sticking their long noses into every Americans business and burdening the country with disastrous regulations. This measure must be brought up again as soon as there is a changeover in Congress. TOO MUCH POWER IN THE FED GOV"T. It must be reined in. Each bureaucracy sees only their own little piece of the pie, not what they are doing to the big picture. Congress is supposed to temper the advances of these bureaucrats, but I am not certain we have enough intelligent people in Congress to do the job. Most of them do not read what they are passing as law.

June 11 2010 at 9:26 AM Report abuse +11 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to ettu's comment
namingway2

The EPA did not force this on anyone. The EPA requested congress to pass guidelines regulating carbon emissions, which they claim leads to harm of American citizens through rising temperatures and the side effects of such (drought, floods, increased disease, wildfires, etc.) Congress has been unable to do pass legislation regarding carbon. Thus the EPA is mandated to act under the Clean air act.

As an aside, could you please enlighten me as to how the government could have prevented the BP spill with less federal power?

June 11 2010 at 12:37 PM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply
jrb359

EPA- didn't they say that the air at ground zero was safe to breathe on 9/11? Are they looking out for our best interest or helping the climate change scam to get more tax payers money?

June 11 2010 at 9:25 AM Report abuse +11 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to jrb359's comment
namingway2

No, they didn't. They said that the air was hazardous for two months after the attack and warned that toxic debris could be returned to the air. They also supported claims of ground zero cleanup workers who contracted mesothelioma from inhaling fiberglass and asbestos particulates.

June 11 2010 at 12:40 PM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply

Follow Politics Daily

  • Comics
robert-and-donna-trussell
CHAOS THEORY
Featuring political comics by Robert and Donna TrussellMore>>
  • Woman UP Video
politics daily videos
Weekly Videos
Woman Up, Politics Daily's Online Sunday ShowMore»
politics daily videos
TV Appearances
Showcasing appearances by Politics Daily staff and contributors.More>>

News From Our Partners