Jan
Senate seeks to can EPA’s “CO2 is a pollutant” regulation
We are heartened to learn of a promising development reported recently by Pajamasmedia in their story ‘Move Afoot in the Senate to Can EPA CO2 Regs’
Last Thursday, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, introduced a resolution of disapproval, under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), to overturn EPA’s endangerment finding (the agency’s official determination that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare). Murkowski’s floor statement and a press release are available here.
We wholly endorse Murkowski’s resolution of disapproval. As pajamasmedia says this is, “a gutsy action intended to safeguard the U.S. economy, government’s accountability to the American people, and the separation of powers under the Constitution.”
The story is drawn from that of Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow in environmental policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), who reports that:
“The Murkowski resolution addresses a basic conflict of interest that Sen. Boxer prefers to sweep under the rug. Under the Clean Air Act, the agency that makes the findings that trigger regulatory action is the same agency that does the regulating. Since regulatory agencies exist to regulate, they have a vested interest in reaching “scientific” conclusions that expand the scope and scale of their power.”
The CEI correctly concludes that the regulatory fallout to come from EPA’s endangerment finding has no clear congressional authorization. Indeed, regulations emanating from the endangerment finding are likely to be more costly and intrusive than any climate bill Congress has considered and either rejected or failed to pass.
As expected, pro-warmist Marxist lover, Sen. Barbara Boxer and other apostles of Gorethodoxy denounced Murkowski’s move as “an assault on the Clean Air Act, public health, science, and ‘the children.’” Boxer then irrationally sought to compare Murkowski to the old tobacco lobby of the 1980’s. Boxer used that old rhetorical trick — when you can’t criticize your opponent’s proposal on the merits, liken it to something else that is plainly odious and indefensible. Shabby politicking, Ms. Boxer, shame on you (we know, you DEMAND to be called Senator Boxer)!
We sceptics stand for the facts, but you carry on slurring your opponents with lies and fraudulent science. Show some integrity, Senator Boxer, do your job and compel all those junk climatologists to stop fudging freedom of information requests or be accused of being complicit in the Great Climate Lie.
CEI’s Lewis concludes, “We are on the brink of an era of runaway regulation without representation. Sen. Boxer complains that the Murkowski resolution is “unprecedented.” But that is only fitting, because the resolution addresses an unprecedented threat to our system of self-government.”
Climategate condemns the shrill hypocrisy of Senator Boxer and we urge her and others in congress to stop ignoring the recent Climategate scandal. Politicians need to act with integrity and insist that there is a full and transparent investigation into Climategate’s leaked dodgy data. The admissions by core climatologists in the emails prove widespread falsification of the science thus rendering all these new regulations from the EPA wholly dubious and unnecessarily harmful to the US economy.
H/T: our reader, gb)
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
None so dumb as those who will not hear.
None so Stupid as those who cannot THINK.
None so intransigent as HE who TAKE$.
Having listened to this eloquent lady take a very reasonable attitude to the EPA’s attempt to make CO2 a pollutant and a danger to us all
I must caution that the ultimate reason for this is to retain jobs
and reduce taxes in Alaska.
She is calling for a full congress debate on the CC issue before the
EPA gets it’s wicked way. I would put her down as being ‘on the fence’
at the moment on AGW as she would still seem to need convincing
on this issue, but at least she is open minded.
Can you explain if this has any legally binding result?
The House is taking this up, too.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/02/house_dem_chairmen_seek_to_blo.html
[...] Senate seeks to can EPA’s “CO2 is a pollutant” regulation [...]