Another EPA Threat Averted (For Now)

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


The Senate hasn’t done much this year on climate or energy. In fact, one could say it has done nothing substantive on the issues. But at least that do-nothing spirit extends to not stripping the Environmental Protection Agency of its ability to regulate planet-warming gases—at least for now.

The Senate Appropriations Committee is slated to mark up the annual appropriations bill on Thursday, and as Politico reported today, there was considerable fear that an amendment to bar the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases would be offered and approved. On Tuesday, Senate Democrats skirted the issue by limiting this week’s markup to just executive branch and defense appropriations, leaving the portion that the question of EPA regulation to a later date.

Yet another attempt to block EPA regulations was expected to come from Republican Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. Her spokesman, Robert Dillon, said her office had drafted an amendment to limit the agency’s ability to spend any funds on said regulations and expected Murkowski to offer it in Thursday’s markup. (She’s been in Alaska contemplating her options for reelection after right-wing challenger Joe Miller unexpectedly defeated her in the primary last month, but expected to be back in DC on Thursday. Dillon said the senator “fully expected to win that vote.”

The measure also had the backing of the US Chamber of Commerce, the American Petroleum Institute, the National Mining Association and the National Association of Manufacturers, among others, reports The Hill.

This, of course, wouldn’t be Murkowski’s first attempt to thwart EPA action; in June the Senate voted down an attempt to strip that authority by an uncomfortably close margin. Six Democrats voted to bar the agency from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, and most of them sit on the Appropriations Committee, which made it more likely that Murkowski’s move would win approval in committee.

But the fact that the EPA regulations are off the table for Thursday doesn’t mean the attempts to block action are no longer a threat. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) has also floated legislation that would delay regulation for two years, and Majority Leader Harry Reid told him his measure would get a vote. On Tuesday, Rockefeller said he would not offer his measure via the appropriations process, after several other Democrats balked. Instead, Rockefeller and his supporters expect a separate vote on the Senate floor sometime this fall.

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 can’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 won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—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 can’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 won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—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