Republican Scott Brown’s win in the special election to fill the open Senate seat from Massachusetts does take away Democrats’ filibuster-proof majority when it comes to hot-button issues like health care and the environment. But Brown’s victory won’t prevent greenhouse gas regulations from being enacted this year.
Reason: The Obama administration has set the stage for GHG rules that don’t need Congressional approval.
EPA’s recent finding that GHGs pose a danger to people and the planet would allow the agency to enact control rules under the Clean Air Act, according to the Obama administration.
Meanwhile, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) has introduced legislation to block EPA from using that tactic.
The measure has 35 Republican and 3 Democrat cosponsors, not enough to stop EPA action.
And even if it passed the Senate, Murkowski’s measure would also have to be approved by the House.
Not all Republicans in the Senate are totally against cap-and-trade legislation to regulate GHGs. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) tried to broker a cap-and-trade deal, but so far he hasn’t been successful.
BusinessBrief.com delivers the latest business news once a week to the inboxes of over 180,000 executives.
Click here to sign up and start your FREE subscription to BusinessBrief!
advertisement
Tags: Clean Air Act, EPA, greenhouse gas regulation, Lisa Murkowski, Scott Brown
March 22nd, 2011 at 2:39 pm
This is a very poorly written “article” – more of an opinion piece, really.
This article raises the well-known and popular “straw-man” argument. It attacks a point that is not the issue at the center of the controversy. The issue is not whether there is “climate change”, but whether is man-made.
The article pretends that there aren’t any scientists believing that climate change is not man-made There are so many in fact, especially among geologists, that when quoting so-called consensus, the climate-change believers now qualify the so-called consensus with the phrase: “among those involved in actual research” (read -those receiving funding to justify it!)
The article also suggests that Republicans did not produce a peer-reviewed report because there isn’t any that will show climate change may not be man-made. In fact, there are hundreds. The most notable are the ones that look at the Earth’s history beyond the last 150 years. Anybody looking at these can see without any science background whatsoever that the Earth’s temperature has been many degrees higher that it is today at a time when there were no man-made sources of greenhouse emissions!
Also, with regards to the quote:
“The Obama administration has set the stage for GHG rules that don’t need Congressional approval.”
That’s news to me.
Question: Since all legislation must originate in the House, exactly where in the Constitution does the executive branch (the EPA) get the authority to enforce rules that were not made pursuant to Congressional legislation?
Answer: Nowhere!
Since H2O is the most abundant greenhouse gas, (in the form of water vapor) then are we to conclude that the EPA can regulate and tax all water (even in our bodies)?
Are we then to conclude that the government could tax me for breathing (after all, I exhale a pollutant?) Perhaps people with bigger lungs should pay a larger tax, for their contribution to the overall greenhouse gases?
Insane? No doubt!