Senate vote: Should EPA have authority
to regulate greenhouse gases?
A resolution aims to stop the EPA's plan to start regulating
greenhouse gases from the largest smokestack sources next year. The vote
on it could signal the chances for an energy-climate bill.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) joined by other Senate colleagues, talks
about her efforts to block the EPA from issuing climate
regulations, during a news conference in the Senate Radio-TV
Studio on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday.
J. Scott Applewhite/AP
President Obama had offered Congress what some dubbed a "carrot and
stick" approach – the “carrot” being that lawmakers could regulate such
emissions themselves in a comprehensive energy-climate bill, or else
come up against a regulatory "stick" from the Environmental Protection
Agency.
Despite passage of an energy-climate bill in the House of
Representatives last year, the US Senate version has stalled. Yet
looming like a locomotive on the tracks, the EPA says it will begin
regulating carbon emissions from the largest smokestack sources next
year.
IN PICTURES: Nuclear power around the world
EPA scientists formally concluded last year that carbon emissions were a
danger to human health and the environment. Federal regulatory machinery
began to clank forward – Mr. Obama's "stick."
Now comes Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) of Alaska with a "Resolution of
Disapproval." The explicit aim is to get rid of the stick by nullifying
the EPA's "endangerment" finding that carbon emissions are a hazard.
The disapproval resolution stands little chance of becoming law because
Obama threatened Wednesday to veto the bill if it reaches his desk. But
as a piece of political theater, it has some big implications.
On the one hand, if it passes the Senate – only 51 votes are needed – it
would mean the EPA would lose the ability to regulate vehicle tailpipe
emissions. That would reduce America’s overall amount of oil savings by
more than 450 million barrels, the agency has said. [Editor's note: The
original version gave the wrong amount of oil savings.]
On the other hand, even if it doesn't pass the Senate, Senator
Murkowski's resolution could harden battle lines and undercut any hope
of getting a comprehensive energy-climate bill through the Senate. It
also could spark the House to vote for a similar bill, leaving Obama
with a revolt on his hands.
Environmentalists have gone to the mat fighting Murkowski's resolution.
Anything close to Senate passage, they say, could sabotage the Obama
administration’s hope of winning the 60 Senate votes necessary for
passage of a comprehensive bill.
"This is a very bad proposal, and it would be bad to have it succeed
anywhere, even if it could never become law," says David Doniger, policy
director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate center.
But the notion of letting the EPA regulate carbon emissions has been
anathema to many in Congress– not just Republicans, but coal-state
Democrats as well. On a broader level, add in the coal, utility, and oil
and gas industries, not to mention manufacturers and the US Chamber of
Commerce. Industry think tanks dubbed the EPA's steps a "power grab."
Going into the vote, Murkowski and her 41 supporters could be short of
the 51 votes needed for approval. The question is: What will swing
Democrats from coal states, the two Republican senators from Maine
(Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe), and the new Massachusetts senator
(Republican Scott Brown) do?
West Virginia Sen. John Rockefeller (D) announced his support for the
Murkowski measure earlier this week.
Absent the passage of a comprehensive energy-climate bill, fossil fuel
will continue to appear cheap and undercut the president's hoped-for
shift toward renewable energy. The Senate vote Thursday is a kind of
straw vote that could set the stage for – or torpedo – further action on
energy-climate legislation this year.
© The Christian Science Monitor. All Rights Reserved. To
subscribe or visit go to:
http://www.csmonitor.com |