EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- 'The Gilded Age' Statistics Corporations Don't Want Workers, or Anyone, to See
- As Death Toll Rises Beyond 500, Garment Factory Disaster 'Worst in World History'
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Move Over, Koch Brothers: A Bigger, Darker Rightwing Funder Is Out to Destroy Public Education
- 'The Gilded Age' Statistics Corporations Don't Want Workers, or Anyone, to See
- Time for Big Green to Go Fossil Free
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
Popular content
Today's Top News
Murkowski to Call on Congress to Block Federal Greenhouse Gas Regulation
Alaskan senator seeking to invoke obscure measure that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from curbing greenhouse gas emissions if Congress fails to act
Lisa Murkowski, an emerging leader on energy in Republican ranks, told a press conference on Wednesday she was thinking of invoking an obscure, rarely used measure that allows Congress to roll back government regulations.
Republican Alaskan senator Lisa Murkowski is thinking of invoking an obscure, rarely used measure that allows Congress to roll back government regulations. (Photograph: Win McNamee/Getty Images) "At this point in time, my inclination is to proceed with the resolution of disapproval," she said. "I think that is a more clear path forward."
If it passes, the resolution, brought under the Congressional Review Act, could remove the Obama administration's "plan B" for climate change - resorting to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to curb greenhouse gas emissions if Congress fails to act.
The measure - called the "nuclear option" by environmentalists - would also ban the administration from drafting any new regulation that would be substantially the same. That would make it even more difficult for any US government to regulate power plants and other big emitters.
Environmentalists say the proposal is unlikely to pass, but ensuring its defeat could require a new round of partisan warfare that could be damaging for Democrats and Obama's agenda.
Murkowski made her move just two days after a painful election defeat for the Democrats in a Massachusetts Senate seat. The loss further underlined the challenges to Obama's agenda, and the difficulties of getting an ambitious climate change programe through Congress.
Among Republicans, Murkowski has tried to cast herself as a moderate who would be prepared to act on climate change. But she has voted against legislation in the past, and has been much criticised this week by environmentalists for her links to the energy industry. According to the Centre for Responsive Politics, Murkowski, from the oil-rich state of Alaska, has received $244,000 (£151,205) in campaign funds from oil and gas companies since 2005, and consulted two energy industry lobbyists before launching today's proposal.
Even before the upset in Massachusetts, Democrats in the industrial heartland and from oil and coal states were wary - or in some cases flatly opposed - to action on climate change. Murkowski's resort to the so-called "nuclear option" could make Democrats even more nervous about embarking on a divisive battle over climate change ahead of the November 2010 mid-term elections.
On Wednesday, Mary Landrieu, a Democratic Senator from Louisiana who has repeatedly expressed concern for her state's oil refining business, told reporters she was working with Murkowski on blocking the EPA. Jim Webb, a Democrat from Virginia, also told reporters this week he opposes using the EPA to regulate emissions.
The Alaskan's resolution would overturn the EPA's finding last month that greenhouse gas emissions were a public health threat. The so-called endangerment finding compelled the agency under the Clean Air Act to introduce regulations for the pollutant.
Murkowski's strategy hinges on using the Congressional Review Act - a law used for the first time in the early days of the George Bush era to throw out new ergonomic standards for workplaces passed under Bill Clinton.
"It would block the EPA from doing the endangerment finding and it would block it in the future," said Robert Dillon, a spokesman for Murkowski. "She believes that the EPA is the worst possible solution. She is willing to consider legislation that would reduce emissions but she believes EPA regulation should be removed from the table."
The measure would require only 51 votes for passage - and Dillon said the Senator was confident of signing up all 40 Republicans as well as some Democrats.
The White House, the EPA, and even the Democratic leadership in Congress have also said they would prefer climate change legislation rather than resorting to the agency's regulatory powers. But the prospect of EPA regulation had been seen as an important nudge to get the Senate to act.
The House of Representatives passed a climate change bill last June, but the Senate has stalled. An effort led by Democrat John Kerry to craft a bill that could pull in Republican support has yet to produce a draft proposal.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
37 Comments so far
Show AllHer name's not MURKowski for no reason; like father, like daughter!
Aye. A real chip off the old blockhead, Frankly.
Just another example of a Senator representing her "bribers" instead of her constituents and the best interests of her country!!!! Is anyone surprised?????
Do you suppose there's something about the climate in Alaska that produces corporate-owned female Nazi politicians? Maybe something in the water?
Profit uber alles, y'all. Screw the planet -- we'll just buy a new one when this one gets too hot.
It's called money. It comes shooting out of the ground at Prudhoe Bay.
The Age of Stupid .........
This is a Crime Against Humanity - drag her off to the Hague now!
Hum, you know well by now that that US citizens are not subject to the court in the Hague.
Drag her off anyway.
Even if one assumed some logic in this on the part of Murkowski and her supporters, it begs the larger question of how our "democratic" government can function. Given the absolute opposition of Republicans to every piece of legislation proposed by the Democrats, how can the Republicans expect any different from Democrats should the Republicans once again become the majority? It seems as if this tit- for- tat mentality is drawing us closer and closer to midnight and that our "democracy" is the big loser.
The planet loses.
Expect opposition from the democrats?
Were you alive from 2000 to 2008?
All of this is kinda moot since both parties are controlled by the corporate elite ensuring that legislation benefits them and not the average person. Humans do a lot of things that are bad for the planet and their own societies and bad isn't confined to the U.S. Again, the midnight hour approaches.
When I read about such a person, biblical quotations on scopes, the infiltration of fundamentalism into government (e.g. the Air Force Academy), (religious) military contracting companies, the "Family"...etc, I wonder if there exists a rarely unspoken but deeply held religious belief in the context of hastening the return of Jesus the Christ by creating a hell on earth under the ruse of doing (the Christian) God's work or following His will, which is open to interpretation and never open to verification.
Verification such as: "Hello God, we have an uncountable number of verifiable idiots (putting it mildly) down here actively proclaiming, sometimes not publicly, that they are speaking for you and carrying out your will. Would you mind letting us know through an independent and trustworthy source with no vested interest in perpetuating endless wars, avoiding peace, lying, cheating, misleading, misinforming, deceiving, making billions off you and so on? I realize this is a really profound and challenging request but please give it a try."
Wandering Wolverine,
I don't know if you consider the bible as "verification" but the religious right ought to at least be aware of the written Word of God. Concerning the return of Jesus Christ, all Christians should know the bible says in Matthew 24:36 (regarding the return of Christ) "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. And in the book of Acts (concerning restoring the kingdom to Israel) Acts 1:7..."He said to them, it is not for you to know the times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority."
So, hasten or not....these people are an abomination to presume to know when the time of the end is. We can read the signs and prepare, but we cannot NAME the times nor DICTATE when God does whatever. And that goes for whatever or whomever you believe God to be. We were given the task to tend to this "garden" and we are accountable for it. We were given lush fruit and we are returning burnt pits!!! The Bible also states that in the end times many will be deceived....I believe that is happening now. Right wing Fundamentalists (the radical zionist element of Christianity) are giving a bad name to true "Christians." Jesus was a Populist.....not a Conservative! He was a radical progressive.....not a right winger! Boy oh boy...these false teachers and hypocrits, are nothing more than modern day pharrises (sp?), white washed sepulchers....there is a special place for them and it's not on the right hand of the Father.
Inanna,
Where is it written in the Bible that Right-wing Fundamentalists cannot use the Bible as a weapon?
She seems to be worried about losing oil-company contributions AND Alaskan votes.
Alaskans never fail to amaze me. They care deeply for their wilderness -- the mountains, the rivers, the sea, the beauty -- and yet, if Murkowski is reading them right, would be more willing to let their state and the world melt down rather than pay state taxes as the rest of us do instead of receiving their annual share of the state's share of oil-company profits.
It is one of the basic tenets of Conservatism that profits must always come before lives. If you die because of what this woman and her fellows do, she won't care. When Conservatives start dying because of what she and her friends do, she will blame you. These people are arrogant, willfully ignorant, greedy, and sociopathic. After the brutal and complete breakdown of civilization that she is inviting, anyone who finds her is welcome to kill and eat her. There won't be much other food out there.
This is the sad truth. We are surrounded by sociopathic idiots. I wouldn't eat a Conservative even with condiments!!
The perfect choice of photo.
Lisa Murkowski looks like an addict who will do anything for her Exxon fix.
In Alaska, unless you are in the pocket of big oil, you have no access to political power. Palin,Murkowski,Young,Hickel,and especially disgraced Senator Stevens who was exonerated of his conviction of 7 felonies, are nothing more than oil puppets and when the big oil companies say jump all they ask is: HOW HIGH!
The prime minister of Canada is also an oil puppet.
It seems normal and natural that oil companies run our countries. Exxon Mobil is number two on the Fortune 500.
Who do you expect to own our democracy? Pepsi? At number 63, all they can afford to own are our public schools.
"The measure would require only 51 votes for passage - and Dillon said the Senator was confident of signing up all 40 Republicans as well as some Democrats."
Hey, remaining Democrat and Obama defenders out there: Why is it that Republicans have only needed to put together 51 votes to pass anything, and Democrats need 60? How do you account for this marked difference in party policy?
And why is it that any vote is always tallied in categories called "all Republicans" and "most Democrats?" Why is Democratic party policy to embrace a significant number of legislators called "some Democrats" who are actually "some Republicans who call themselves Democrats, and the other Democrats have no problem with that?"
How do you account for the stark difference in these two party policies? And do you correlate it in any way to why "liberal" legislation (original definition) never passes no matter how wide a Democratic Party majority superficially appears to be, and why right wing legislation (today's definition) advances no matter how slim its superficial majority, or even how wide its minority?
Then there's the gloomier question: why is it that when most Democrats get disenchanted with their party's practices not living up to the campaign promises, they vote for Republicans instead of for people running in favor of the things the Democratic Party has abandoned that caused the disenchantment?
In other words, WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU DEMOCRATS?!!
Well put. I ask myself these same questions all the time. Why do Democrats have a hard time finding unity? Repuglicans always seem to stand as a bloc. No matter how much of a majority the Democrats enjoy, there are always dissenters who will sleep with the GOP slimebags. I rarely ever see Rupublicans crossing over to vote with Democrats. I guess most Democrats are Repuglicans in disguise. i think it's time for a real social revolution and not a political farce we call elections.
The Province of British Columbia in Canada is run by a party that call themselves the "Liberals" and they are not affiliated with the national "Liberals" who are the official opposition to the ruling "Conservatives." The British Columbia "Liberals" are not really liberals at all in policy or deed. It is common for the provincial "Liberals" to be described as quite far right of center. The Bastards in power will call themselves anything as long as public money flows upward into the hands of the corporations. Deception is the number one way to get what you want these days; truth be damned.
Oh, by the way, social programs and education took serious hits in British Columbia this year. The Olympics have to be paid for somehow!
Exactly. Deception, "smoke and mirrors", "bread and circuses", propaganda. What ever you call it, it's all about keeping the people's eyes off the real target. By keeping us fearful of imaginary enemies or outraged about inconsequential celebrity transgressions, we keep the populace entertained and distracted from the real crime and that is the raping of our planet and the theft of our national treasure by the bastards in power. Keep the 'reality shows' coming because most people can't handle the true reality that we are all screwed. When it really hits the fan, most Americans would probably rather be watching American Idol or The Biggest Loser or some other 'reality' tripe.
Rahm is a big part of what is wrong with the democrats -- When he was in congress working on congressional campaigns, Rahm got bunch of right wingers to fill democratic House seats. Now Rahm is back in the White House pushing corporate interests and Trillions for the big banks, and busy destroying any hope of medicare for all.
Gloomy answer to gloomy question: most Americans actually think 2 things, 1). There is a difference between the two parties, and 2). There are only two options, no third parties, a vote for a third party is a wasted vote.
What's striking is that global warming's effects are most pronounced near the poles. The changes for Alaska will be drastic, including the extinction of numerous species and the destruction of the indigenous way of life.
It's impressive that people like Murkowski call themselves "conservatives" even as they hasten what may be the most drastic change in human history.
Obama can veto the bill if it passes....But will he veto it?
Obama has a White House full of investment bankers like Rahm so I expect continued betrayal of progressive who got Obama elected.
The 60 Dims say do you like this bill Repugs?
We do not want to offend your sensibilties by passing anything you find distasteful.
Change this, change that why of course.
Now is it corporate and fascist enough for the greediest most ignorant Repug and Dim ?
Good, thats the bill we will pass and Obomber will sign.
Wouldn't the House also have to pass the resolution? Wouldn't Congress need to overide a veto? Curious.
What is it with these women in the Senate - Like my two "moderate" republicans Snowe and Collins from Maine ?! And, even worse, Murkowski of Alaska, let alone that "so-called" Democrat Landrieu from Lousiana and Feinstein of California and others - geesh. How about Pelosi in the House and other supposed women in the House and Senate whose names elude me at the moment.
I thought women wanted to abolish the "Old Boy" network and lead us out of millenia of Paternalistic Violence into a new Era where peace and female values guided Society.
Curses, Foiled again !
The elites are at it again, spouting gibberish, trying to distract the people, who are formulating in their minds and in their local communities legitimate public policy. The principles that guide the people on industrial policy are simple: Producers have no rights and no legitimate voice. And producers have no rights to influence markets. Market demands are the exclusive domain of the people, and the people's priority as such is to serve the society's better interests, which have nothing to do with economic growth or empire, or any producer's ambition to control any market. The sign of a healthy society is the humility of producers. Or, hubris smashed to powder. This is why the far-left platform calls for limits on asset ownership and enterprise size to ten man-powers. We don't need any entity larger than that. So any that exist are lumbering delinquents slated for disassembly.
The most important thing we need to realize is that WE ARE IN CONTROL.
WE, THE CONSUMERS drive the market.
SUPPLY and DEMAND has in large part created our environmental woes.
WE may not be able to put an oil company out of business, as Alec Baldwin suggests in his Huffington Post article, BUT we can put FACTORY FARMS out of business.
We can no longer deny the harmful effects of FACTORY FARMS on our environment, on our health and on animals.
51% of greenhouse gases are attributed to FACTORY FARMS.
(www.worldwatch.org/ww/livestock).
98% of soy crops and 50% of corn in the U.S. is fed to farmed animals.
It takes 2500 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of beef.
Can we put aside our defensiveness and clinging to bad habits to benefit our health and the health of our planet?
This is about more than "climate change". This is about our air, water, land and the animals we call food that are contaminated with E-Coli, Salmonella, growth hormones, GMO's, antibiotics and subjected to horrific conditions on factory farms.
WE CAN substitute healthy proteins (quinoa, beans, nuts, grains, potatoes, vegetables, tempeh and more) in place of animal products and enjoy a life free of disease, pollution, and suffering.
EAT for your mind, body and soul; EAT a plant-based diet.
Murkowshi looks sort of alien/reptilian...perhaps she prefers breathing carbon dioxide?
Definitely android-ish in her appearance and mechanical in her reasoning.
if you are happy with the NON-ELECTED EPA running the show on CO2 don't whine if the GOP wins in 2012. If you like it now, love it when the Democrats are not in power!