Murkowski Moves to Thwart EPA Regulation of Emissions

Image courtesy of Sen. Murkowski's office.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) introduced an amendment on Wednesday that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions, saying such a course of action could result in an “economic train wreck.”

Murkowski’s amendment would block the EPA from creating regulations for greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources—like power plants, refineries, and manufacturers—for another year, though the agency could continue work on regulating emissions from automobiles. Murkowski says the “timeout” is needed “in order to give Congress time to act on legislation that would address climate change responsibly, hopefully with as little economic impact as possible.”

“I am not suggesting through this amendment that we should take the issue of climate change legislation off the table,” said Murkowski in a call with reporters hosted by the Republican National Committee on Tuesday. “I believe we do need to be working this as an issue,” she continued, but added that “competing priorities” before the Senate likely mean that they won’t get to climate legislation this year. And in the absence of legislative action, she wants to make sure the EPA doesn’t pick up the slack. “The EPA can move forward, will move forward and fill that legislative vacuum if we have not moved forward,” she said.

The request for a delay comes more than two years after the Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that the agency could regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act—and in fact has an obligation to. Murkowski argues that since the specific case dealt with automobile emissions, EPA regulation of mobile sources should proceed while stationary sources should be put on hold. Yet her interpretation plays fast and loose with the Supreme Court’s decision and with the basics of the Clean Air Act, which mandates that once an emission is found to be a hazard to human health and welfare, the EPA shall begin regulating the sources of that pollutant. To refrain from so would violate the law, even if the specific case that raised the question dealt with automobiles.

Murkowski planned to ask for her amendment to come up for a vote on Wednesday afternoon, as the Senate is considering a $32.1 billion spending bill which covers appropriations for the EPA as well as the Department of Interior and the U.S. Forest Service.  

With world leaders gathered in New York for the United Nations Climate Summit, Murkowski also downplayed the idea that Congress needs to move forward on regulating greenhouse gas emissions this year, before leaders convene in Copenhagen in December to hammer out a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. Rather than approving a bill that will allow the US to participate fully in treaty deliberations, she argued that Congress should instead move even slower than it has thus far.

“The notion that we would as a Congress try to ram through legislation such as climate change legislation just so that we can go to Copenhagen and say that we have taken steps to address climate change, to me is not the correct way to proceed,” she said. “I believe this is a serious enough issue that we should take the time to do it correctly. A conference coming up is not the right reason.”

Other Republican senators are also looking to use the appropriations process to obstruct environmental research and regulation. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) has submitted an amendment to the appropriations bill that would block funding for regional climate change centers that analyze and prepare for the impacts of climate change, and an amendment that would cut off funds to carry out directives from White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy director Carol Browner. Vitter has said he is not convinced that humans are causing global warming.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate