On June 10, 2010 … the US Senate debated Joint Resolution 26 – a resolution to disapprove a rule submitted by the EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) on December 15, 2009 relating to greenhouse gasses. After over 6 hours of debate the US Senate voted against the resolution 53 to 47.  You can view the entire session at CSpan Video Library


According to Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), because this (i.e., EPA action) is our worst option to reduce emissions and Congress needs time to develop a more appropriate solution, I have introduced a resolution of disapproval … I introduced this back in January … to halt the EPA’s regulations.  My resolution does not affect the science behind the endangerment finding, but it will prevent the finding from being enforced through economy-wide regulations.

 About the Opposition

Most of the comments by Senators opposing Resolution 26 were “red herrings” … about their confidence that the scientific findings were compelling, about fuel standards and about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Instead of reasoned debate, we got political theatre! Did they read the bill?… did they read the EPA rule? … or did they use Barbara Boxer’s talking points to prepare their comments?

Click here to view the Text of S. J. Resolution 26
Click here to view the EPA Regulatory Action – Final GHG Tailoring Rule (May 13, 2010)
 
EnvironmentViews is troubled that many of the arguments for opposing Resolution 26 are based on the assumption that the “science” is settled.

These comments from Senator Joe Lieberman are typical .. “So I would say to my colleagues, regardless of whether you believe Congress or the E.P.A. should determine our National Strategy for addressing the threat of Global Warming, I hope you can agree that unchecked carbon dioxide emissions endanger human health and welfare.” … “It’s time to move past the debate about climate science and engage in an honest, production, bipartisan conversation about what we can do as a nation, as people privileged to be leaders of this nation to combat the problem, the challenge that science tells us is happening.”

About the Support 

Senators recommending a vote for Resolution 26 addressed the following important questions:
 

1. Who should set Energy and Environment Policy?
We believe energy and environment policy should be written in congress not by unelected bureaucrats.

To quote Senator James Risch (R-Idaho) “This resolution is about the separation of powers.” If this resolution is defeated “it will be a defeat for the American people and more importantly, it will be a defeat and another erosion of the Constitution of this great country and movement of power from the Legislative Branch where it belongs to the Administrative Branch, to the bureaucrats, to the people who are not elected.

2. What about “the science”?
The science behind the assumption that, by controlling carbon emissions we can mitigate climate problems, is coming under attack (for more info visit Heartland Institute).  In addition, even if the science is correct, unless other countries like China also participate there would be no expectation of success … only huge costs.

3. Using the Clean Air Act to control carbon – a bad idea?
The EPA plan would “reduce emissions at an unreasonably high cost and through an unnecessarily bureaucratic process” says Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). 

Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) stated ”The Environmental Protection Agency’s move to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act is an economic and bureaucratic nightmare in the making that’s going to have a devastating effect on our economy and put a regulatory stranglehold on businesses and individuals across the country.

4. Will courts strike down the EPA “tailoring rule”?
According to Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), “What you will see is lawsuits as some sectors and some sources are regulated while others are not.”

As stated in the EPA Final Rule Fact Sheet: Without this tailoring rule, the lower emissions thresholds would take effect automatically for GHGs on January 2, 2011.  PSD and Title V requirements at these thresholds would lead to dramatic increases in the number of required permits  – tens of thousands of PSD permits and millions of title V permits.  State, local, and tribal permitting authorities would be overwhelmed and the programs’ abilities to manage air quality would be severely impaired.

 5. Why is there no cost/benefit data available from the EPA?

The EPA has not published any information about the economic impact of these regulations. 

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) made the following observations… “If warming is the endangerment, then the benefit is the amount of warming the regulations would avoid. …According to the alarmist and some would say overblown assumptions at the U.N. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), Americans can expect a cooling benefit of somewhere between 0.07 and 0.2 degrees Celsius after a full 100 years of effort. That is right, we are being asked to give up trillions of dollars in economic activity, send all manufacturing activity overseas, give up millions of jobs, and put basic human activities under the control of the EPA, all for a benefit that cannot be measured on a household thermometer after 100 years of sacrifice and pain.”

EnvironmentViews strongly recommend you listen to all the presentations and contact your Senators to voice your concern.  It is imperative that our US Senators get up-to-date on the basic assumptions concerning climate issues before proceeding with new rules and regulations that will impact the energy sector of our economy and therefore impact all Americans. No matter how often they say “carbon dioxide endangers human health and welfare” that does not make it a true statement… this is propaganda.  For those who voted against Resolution 26, you need to ask whether they were motivated by special interests or by what will be in the best interest of America.

We would like to thank all the Senators who voted for Resolution 26 including … Evan Bayh (D-IN), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR).
To the Senators who voted in opposition, including Michael Bennet (D-CO) and Mark Udall (D-CO) we would like to remind them they took an oath to support and defend  the US Constitution.

Some Additional Information:
OpenMarket.org article by Mario Lewis, June 10, 2010
Click here  “The resolution is a referendum not on climate science but on who shall make climate policy: Elected lawmakers who must answer to the people at the ballot box or politically unaccountable bureaucrats, trial lawyers, and activist judges appointed for life?”

The Washington Examiner (June 11, 2010) click here to read their article Senate Surrenders to the EPA … “it’s vital to understand how bureaucracies function. Whatever else they may do, leading bureaucrats always do two things, regardless of which party controls the White House or Congress: They limit choices available to the rest of us by imposing regulations that increase government power and thus justify expanding their budgets and staffs; and they protect themselves and their turf by suppressing internal dissent, often at any costs.”
            
Press Release June 10, 2010 – Senator Kevin Lundberg, Colorado Senate District 15
“The EPA has already positioned itself to regulate fuel economy, set climate policy and amend the Clean Air Act, powers never delegated to it by Congress,” Lundberg said. “Enough is enough. We need to restore the constitutional separation of powers and put the EPA in its place.”

To quote Ken Haapala, Executive Vice President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (www.SEPP.org) “The dire, false claims from the environmental industry were predictable. Comments by some senators were equally absurd. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) declared voting for the bill was equivalent to repealing the laws of gravity.”