It’s Not Just Filibusters
Today, I attended a fundraiser for Senator Barbara Boxer at the house of Laurie David headlined by Vice President Al Gore. Senator Boxer told of the tough words she had for Senator Lisa Murkowski on the Senate floor as the Alaska Republican commenced an effort to use parliamentary tricks to prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. The irony here, Senator Boxer pointed out, was that even the George Bush Supreme Court recognized the EPA’s regulatory authority.
Here’s the back story.
In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases are a pollutant:
In a defeat for the Bush administration, the US Supreme Court ruled Monday that greenhouse gases are a pollutant and ordered federal environmental officials to re-examine their refusal to limit emissions of the gases from cars and trucks.
That wasn’t the answer the Bush Administration was looking for, so they decided to ignore the EPA:
Agency scientists were virtually unanimous in determining that those gases caused such harm, but top Bush administration officials suppressed their work and took no action.
But then President Obama took office:
The Environmental Protection Agency on Friday formally declared carbon dioxide and five other heat-trapping gases to be pollutants that endanger public health and welfare, setting in motion a process that will lead to the regulation of the gases for the first time in the United States.
…
The E.P.A. administrator, Lisa P. Jackson, said: “This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations. Fortunately, it follows President Obama’s call for a low-carbon economy and strong leadership in Congress on clean energy and climate legislation.”
…
In his first days in office, Mr. Obama promised to review the case and act quickly if the findings were justified. The announcement Friday was the fruit of that review.
According to the E.P.A. announcement, the finding was based on rigorous scientific analysis of six gases — carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride — that have been widely studied by scientists. The agency said its studies showed that concentrations of the gases were at unprecedented levels as a result of human activity and that it was highly likely that those elevated levels were responsible for an increase in average temperatures and other climate changes.
Among the ill effects of rising atmospheric concentrations of the gases, the agency found, were increased drought, more heavy downpours and flooding, more frequent and intense heat waves and wildfires, a steeper rise in sea levels and harm to water resources, agriculture, wildlife and ecosystems.
Neither President Obama, Senator Boxer nor Administrator Jackson wanted to use EPA regulation rather than cap and trade legislation, but it was better than nothing. Until Senator Murkowski got involved last month:
In a speech to Congress, a Republican senator from Alaska announced she would use an obscure and rarely used measure to try to strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its powers to regulate greenhouse gas emissions as a dangerous pollutant.
“We cannot turn a blind eye to the EPA’s efforts to impose back-door climate regulations,” Lisa Murkowski told the Senate in prepared remarks. Murkowski’s motion of disapproval, though unlikely to become law, is widely seen as a barometer for the chances of getting a climate change bill through the Senate this year.
…
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. The measure would require only 51 votes for passage and the Senator is confident of signing up all 40 Republicans as well as some Democrats.
…
According to the Centre for Responsive Politics, Murkowski, from the oil-rich state of Alaska, has received $244,000 in campaign funds from oil and gas companies since 2005, and consulted two energy industry lobbyists before launching today’s proposal.
So Boxer (and others) let Murkowski have it:
The move by Murkowski brought a furious response from Democratic leaders and a coalition of environmental, business and religious organisations. Barbara Boxer, the California Democrat said blocking the EPA was a radical move that would expose Americans to public health risks from global warming. The Union of Concerned Scientists said it was an assault on science, and California’s governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, wrote a letter asking his fellow Republicans to let the EPA do its work.
While Senator Murkowski tries to work coal black magic in the legislative branch, it was reported today in the Wall Street Journal the United States Chamber of Commerce is taking the fight to the courts:
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce Friday filed a petition in a federal court of appeals challenging an Environmental Protection Agency decision that triggers regulation of greenhouse gases across the economy.
The Chamber–which believes regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act could cause serious harm to the economy–said it wouldn’t test the science of EPA’s decision to find greenhouse gases a danger to public health and welfare, but rather the agency’s process.
“The Chamber’s legal challenge will focus specifically on the inadequacies of the process that EPA followed in triggering Clean Air Act regulation,” Steven Law, chief legal officer and general counsel at the Chamber, said in a statement.
Whether it’s filibusters, the Congressional Review Act or the federal courts, I can’t help but feel that their side is taking advantage of the rules a little better than we are. Recess appointments, anyone?
