Global warming heats up Republican attacks on EPA

Vowing to curb the authority and the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency, congressional Republicans are attacking the agency to a degree not seen since President Richard Nixon created it 40 years ago.

Republicans, launching an attack on the Obama administration's powers to act on climate change, proposed a 17% budget cut to the Environmental Protection Agency. The proposed $1.6bn cut to the EPA was the largest in dollar terms of some 70 budgetary measures put forward by Republicans on Wednesday, February 9th.

In a follow-up strike, they repeatedly challenged the legal authority of the agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions during a contentious hearing in Congress. The GOP proposal would block the Environmental Protection Agency from reducing greenhouse gases and reverse the agency's scientific finding that climate change is dangerous.

While the plan might be blocked in the Senate or vetoed by President Obama, the comments during Wednesday's hearing were a fresh indication of the depth of opposition in Congress to action on reducing U.S. carbon pollution. Supporters of the measure to revise the Clean Air Act to take away the EPA's authority to regulate this type of pollution said that curbing emissions would be too costly.

The EPA's planned regulations "would boost the cost of energy, not just for homeowners and car owners, but for businesses both large and small," said Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., the author of the legislation. "EPA may be starting by regulating only the largest power plants and factories, but we will all feel the impact of higher prices and fewer jobs."

The EPA's effort to tackle the latest and perhaps most challenging environmental problem - global warming - has made it a central target of the new Republican leadership's anti-regulatory agenda. Having failed last year to enact new legislation to curb global warming, the administration is left to use existing law - the Clean Air Act - to start reducing the pollution causing the planet's temperature to rise.

"Congress intends to reassert itself in the statutory and regulatory process at EPA and specifically the Clean Air Act," said Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-Ky., chairman of the subcommittee on energy and power. He is a sponsor of a draft bill that would block the EPA from using the law to control heat-trapping pollution.

Lisa Jackson, the EPA chief, said the attacks were part of a larger Republican project to roll back years of environmental and safety protections.

"I think this is a serious effort to weaken the clean air act," she said.

Jackson and the EPA have emerged as prime targets for the Republican majority in the House of Representatives, who have promised to block what they say are "job-killing" regulations.

A number of other Republicans declared the science on climate change was "mixed".

In other exchanges, Jackson was accused repeatedly of overstepping her legal authority by introducing limited regulations on greenhouse gas emissions earlier this year – despite a supreme court ruling that such actions fell within the remit of the EPA.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told the panel that the proposed legislation "would eliminate portions . of the landmark law that all American children and adults rely on to protect them from harmful air pollution."

During more than two hours of testimony, Jackson said the law and overwhelming scientific evidence on global warming compelled the EPA to act.

Jackson said Congress would be wrong to overturn the EPA's 2009 "endangerment finding" that greenhouse gases are a threat to American health and welfare. "Politicians overruling scientists on a scientific question — that would become part of this committee's legacy," she said.

She cited the National Academy of Sciences, the government's chief science advisory body, which has reported that "there is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that the climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities."

House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., the author of the draft bill, denied that it would limit the federal government's ability to monitor and reduce health-damaging pollution.

At the same time, Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers, R-Ky., proposed a sweeping $1.9 billion cut - about 18 percent - to the amount of money requested for EPA this year by President Obama. Rogers' proposal would also shave millions from EPA programs that reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, and those that boost energy efficiency in household appliances and collect data on heat-trapping emissions.

The agency has been caught before in shifting political winds. In the past, however, Congress passed nearly unanimously the laws that cleaned up the air and water. Longtime observers say the atmosphere for the agency today has never been more toxic.

"It's really been quite extreme," William Ruckelshaus (left), EPA administrator under Nixon and again under President Ronald Reagan, said of the rhetoric aimed at the agency. "What are they supposed to do? Sit there and do nothing?"

The latest and perhaps most draconian attack came from Newt Gingrich (right), the former House speaker and possible 2012 GOP presidential candidate. Gingrich called for abolishing the EPA and replacing it with an organization more friendly to business.

During a campaign commercial last year, Democrat Joe Manchin (left) of West Virginia used a rifle to blast a hole through legislation limiting the gases blamed for global warming. He won a seat in the Senate.

Mike McKenna, a Republican strategist, says Gingrich and Manchin are outliers in a more reasoned debate over how big the global warming problem is and how to deal with it.

"I don't think the (political) base is ready to throw EPA out the window," McKenna said. "There are plenty of people across the country who want EPA ratcheted down and think it has gone too far, too fast."
In fact, Americans in large numbers do not support the Gingrich - Upton agenda. Public opinion polling released February 2nd by the Opinion Research Corporation finds that Americans don't want to eliminate the EPA as Gingrich suggests, nor do they want Congress to stop it from doing its job of protecting public health, as Chairman Upton and others want to do.
Almost two thirds of Americans (63 percent) say “the EPA needs to do more to hold polluters accountable and protect the air and water,” versus under a third (29 percent) who think the EPA already “does too much and places too many costly restrictions on businesses and individuals.”
More than three out of four Americans (77 percent) -- including 61 percent of Republicans – say “Congress (should) let the EPA do its job.” As far as Gingrich's plan to eliminate the EPA, the survey showed that 67% (two-thirds) of Americans oppose the eliminations of the EPA.

Despite the support for the EPA by the majority of Americans, lawmakers of both parties have already introduced a dozen bills aimed at weakening, delaying or blocking pollution regulations. Business groups invited by congressional Republicans to describe their biggest regulatory burdens singled out EPA rules more than any other.

The main target is the agency's use of the Clean Air Act to control greenhouse gases. The Supreme Court said in 2007 the law could be used to fight global warming.

In 2009, the EPA under Obama put the law in motion by concluding that climate change caused by pollution from industries, automobiles and other sources burning fossil fuels threaten public health and welfare. Some Republicans - and some Democrats from industrial states - aren't convinced that's the case.

Others, including Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., think the law is ill-suited to deal with the problem. Dingell led negotiations over the last major overhaul of the Clean Air Act, in 1990. On Wednesday, he told Jackson the agency's use of the law for global warming has put it in the "intolerable hole in which I find you."

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the committee and author of the climate legislation that passed the House in 2009, circulated a letter in which even the EPA chief in the George Bush era conceded that the agency had a legal obligation to act on climate change. Waxman said that while Republicans could rewrite the nation's laws, they couldn't change scientific evidence showing global warming is a threat.

"The underlying premise of this bill is that climate change is a hoax," Waxman said. "The science hasn't changed in the last two years; in fact, it's only gotten stronger."

There's also growing resistance to a host of other regulations expected from the agency. Some were initiated by Obama, but others are the result of courts throwing regulations from the George W. Bush administration. Still others stem from reviews required by law to update standards to reflect the latest science. They cover everything from ground-level ozone, the main ingredient in smog, to coal ash disposal, to rules aimed at reducing pollution blowing into downwind states and from industrial boilers.

The EPA's defenders say the agency is simply following statutes aimed at protecting people's health - something they say has strong support and is necessary for a healthy economy.

Source:
Forbes, "Global warming heats up Republican attacks on EPA", accessed February 10, 2011
The Guardian, "Republicans propose $1.6bn cut to Environmental Protection Agency", accessed February 10, 2011
McClatchy, "House panel plans to overturn EPA's finding on climate change", accessed February 10, 2011

From the Inbox: Who does clean air belong to?

If one law helped shrink the hole in the ozone layer, most people would think it was good. If the same law helped save our forests from acid rain, removed toxic lead from our gasoline and lowered the number of our children developing asthma, most people would consider it great. And if that same exact law saved our country nearly $22 trillion over 20 years, most people would call it a landmark piece of legislation and a model of American leadership. That law exists -- it's called the Clean Air Act. But right now, lobbyists from the fossil fuel industry are trying to gut this crucial law and roll back decades of progress for our economy, our health and our environment. Tell big polluters that clean air belongs to us -- and it isn't for sale. Join Alec Baldwin, Kris Kristofferson and Gloria Reuben by adding your picture or video to Repower America's Clean Air Act video today. The Clean Air Act has received overwhelming bipartisan support over the years. In fact, one of the biggest updates to the law was signed by President George H.W. Bush in 1990. Yet the fossil fuel industry is targeting one of the provisions that makes this law so successful -- the section that empowers the EPA to limit greenhouse gas pollution threatening our public health and welfare. They're trying to weaken the law that's given us cleaner cars, lower rates of cancer and a huge increase in air quality. Add your voice to the new video and take a stand for clean air by midnight on Friday, September 10: www.RepowerAmerica.org/MyCleanAir We'll select the best submissions to be in our final video. The Clean Air Act is our last, best line of defense against the fossil fuel industry. Supporters like us need to take action today and save this vitally important law. Thanks for getting involved at this critical moment, Dave Boundy Campaign Manager The Climate Protection Action Fund's Repower America campaign

From the Inbox - A Big Win and what's Next

Dear Friend, Yesterday, thanks to your hard work, the U.S. Senate did the right thing -- voting with the climate science and against a resolution that would have stripped the Clean Air Act's protections against climate pollution. The Senate is to be commended for defeating Senator Lisa Murkowski's disastrously misguided proposal. But the truth is, in the face of the worst environmental disaster in our nation's history, Senator Murkowski's resolution never should have even reached the Senate floor. The fact that we had to work to defeat this legislation is a testament to the continued strength of the fossil fuel lobby. But the fact that we did defeat it gives us fresh momentum for the months ahead, as our nation confronts the costs of our dependence on fossil fuels more directly than ever. This summer, we can and must set our nation on the path of independence from oil and other dirty energy. Will you donate to support Repower America's campaign to pass comprehensive climate and clean energy legislation this summer? We must confront the growing plumes of oil now consuming the Gulf Coast and soon to affect much of the Eastern Seaboard. We must pass comprehensive climate and clean energy legislation -- our best hope of staving off the catastrophic climate change that will dwarf the Deepwater Oil Disaster in scope and devastation. And we must accomplish all this despite the millions of dollars that big oil will spend to defeat us. Yesterday's vote shows that when we work together, we can defeat these forces. Over the last two years, over 250,000 of us have taken action to protect the Clean Air Act, including: Submitting over 180,000 comments to the administration urging the EPA to enforce the Clean Air Act's limits on greenhouse gases, Making over 30,000 phone calls opposing Senator Murkowski's proposal and Writing over 7,200 letters to the editor. This summer, it's time to take exactly the same tenacity and commitment we have shown on these attacks on the Clean Air Act and win the biggest prize of all: comprehensive climate and clean energy legislation that transitions our economy to clean energy. Donate now to support our campaign to Repower America: http://cpaf.repoweramerica.org/cleanairvictorynd We've won an important battle. Now, it's time to win the war. Al Gore Founder The Climate Protection Action Fund Contributions or gifts to the Climate Protection Action Fund are not tax deductible.

From the Inbox: We did it!!

June 14, 2010

Congratulations!!Last week, a national movement came together and called the Senate thousands of times. We sent an unmistakable message that America is ready for a clean energy future. Senator Murkowski's Dirty Air Act was defeated by a vote of 53 to 47. But the battle continues. Momentum is on our side, now we have to keep the pressure on! To pass a comprehensive climate bill in the Senate this summer, we will need 60 votes - 7 more than voted against the Dirty Air Act. To make sure that happens, we will need your help. PITCH IN $1 FOR EVERY VOTE WE NEED TO PASS WORTHWHILE, COMPREHENSIVE CLEAN ENERGY AND CLIMATE LEGISLATION. We will use every single dollar to help pass a bill this summer. What happens in the next few weeks will likely determine U.S. energy policy for the next decade. We must make our stand. Please donate today. Sincerely, Peter Lehner Executive Director NRDC Action Fund

White House eyes veto if Senate curbs EPA climate power

The White House on Tuesday threatened a presidential veto if Congress passes a measure to strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Senator Lisa Murkowski (left), a Republican from Alaska, is leading an effort against looming EPA regulation and has 40 co-sponsors for the bill, which is set for a vote on Thursday.

"The EPA intends to take control of climate policy; take it away from the Congress," Murkowski told reporters. She complained that EPA climate control regulations would cost businesses "billions of dollars" and added that her legislation "is about protecting the economy and preventing agency overreach."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, asked by reporters about prospects for defeating Murkowski, said: "I don't know. Counts are being made ... It appears we're going to be okay, but we'll never know until the vote takes place."

Murkowski's effort has sparked a clash with President Barack Obama, who wants the EPA to have powers to set limits on industrial emissions and other pollutants if Congress fails to enact its own legislation to fight climate change.

A climate bill passed the U.S. House of Representatives a year ago, but a similar effort is bogged down in the Senate.

Congressional and private sector sources said on Monday the Murkowski plan would fail unless it found new last-minute support. Even if it did pass the Senate, the House of Representatives also would have to approve the controversial measure before Obama got an opportunity to veto it.

White House officials have been fighting her efforts for months. Obama is under international pressure to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, blamed for helping to heat the Earth, while the United Nations attempts to agree on a pact that would curb emissions worldwide.

The White House said on Tuesday the Murkowski resolution would hurt the government's ability to combat climate change.

"If the president is presented with this Resolution of Disapproval, which would seriously disrupt EPA's ability to address the threat of GHG (greenhouse gas) pollution, as well as the multi-agency Federal GHG and fuel economy program, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the resolution," it said in a statement.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that the EPA had the right to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The White House said the Murkowski measure would hinder the agency's ability to comply with the court.

PREFERENCE FOR LEGISLATION

Obama and his advisers still prefer legislation to fight climate change over EPA regulation, but the latter has served as a convenient option that the administration can cite at U.N. talks in the event a more general law is not passed.

"The administration believes that comprehensive energy and climate legislation is the most effective way to transition to a clean energy economy that will create jobs, protect the environment, and increase national security," the White House said, reiterating that position.

"(The resolution) would do just the opposite; it would increase the nation's dependence on oil and other fossil fuels and block efforts to cut pollution that threatens our health and well-being."

Republican Senator Michael Enzi of Wyoming defended the resolution, calling proposed EPA regulations "a hidden tax" and, like Murkowski, called it "an overreach" by government bureaucrats.

"In a big city, people are breathing out CO2 all the time. Will that affect the Clean Air Act?" he asked reporters.

Activists largely side with Obama. Environmental group Earthjustice painted Thursday's vote as a test of senators allegiance as the country battles the huge environmental disaster resulting from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

"Which senators are on the side of big, influential, dirty fossil fuel industries at this moment of man-made crisis in American history?" the group said in a statement.

"And which are on the side of the American people and working to guarantee us a clean and healthy future? We will know the answer on Thursday."

Source:
Reuters, "White House eyes veto if Senate curbs EPA climate power", accessed June 7, 2010

From the Inbox - Critical vote in Three Days. Stop Senator Murkowski from trashing the Clean Air Act!

June 7, 2010

Dear Friend, As oil continues to spew into the Gulf of Mexico and greenhouse gases belch into the atmosphere, you'd think the U.S. Senate would be focusing its energies on strengthening environmental protections. Unfortunately, for senators like Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), that's not at all where their priorities lie. On June 10th -- just three days from now! -- the Senate is scheduled to vote on a resolution, sponsored by Sen. Murkowski, which actually would block use of the Clean Air Act to ensure that new power plants and factories use the cleanest, affordable technology. As if that's not bad enough, Sen. Murkowski's "Dirty Air Act" would also reverse new clean car standards. Needless to say, this is completely unacceptable and infuriating. Don't let Lisa Murkowski and her Big Oil buddies set us back at this critical moment. Please dial (202) 224-3121 right now and tell your senators to vote "NO" on Senator Murkowski's Dirty Air Act. We also need you to spread the word on your social networks, recruit your friends and bring it up at dinner conversations this week. By engaging your friends, you help us build the movement to defeat these bad ideas and pass solid laws that protect our environment. With your help, we can win this fight. Without your help, we can't. It's that simple. Fortunately, we know we can count on you. On behalf of the NRDC Action Fund, I thank you for your help at this crucial moment for our planet! Sincerely, Peter Lehner Executive Director NRDC Action Fund

From the Inbox: Stop the Big Polluter Bailout

TAKE ACTION: Stop the Big Polluter Bailout
	We can't give in to big polluters that want to keep us hooked on dirty, dangerous fossil fuels. Ask your senators to oppose renewed attempts to undermine the Clean Air Act!
Dear Friend, On the heels of two big fossil fuel disasters, there are those in Congress who still think that this dirty and dangerous industry deserves a bailout. And our opponents are anything but creative. Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski and her allies are expected to stage yet another attack on the Clean Air Act as soon as this week. For those of you keeping score at home, this is the third time Senator Murkowski has made such a proposal, and she is likely thinking that the third time is the charm. Your letters and calls to Congress have succeeded in keeping Sen. Murkowski at bay in the past, but she is clearly not going away. That's why we're asking you to help us make sure she does not succeed no matter how many times she tries to undermine the Clean Air Act. Tell your senators to do the right thing for our clean energy future. We can't give in to the big polluters that want to keep us hooked on dirty and dangerous fossil fuels. Write your senators today and urge them to oppose the Murkowski resolution: http://action.earthjustice.org/campaign/murkowski_0510/i37iwdu2075j7i8n? — Earthjustice Because the earth needs a good lawyer

action@earthjustice.org

Photo Credit: Bottom: Galen Rowell / Mountain Light.

From the Inbox - Clean Air Under Attack Again

Senator Lisa Murkowski just doesn't take no for an answer. Right now, she's preparing to re-launch her lobbyist-penned, oil-company-supported, science-denying attack on the Clean Air Act -- with a vote as soon as this week. The Murkowski "Dirty Air Act," written by the fossil fuel lobby1, would strip the Clean Air Act -- one of our most proven, effective tools to keep our air and water clean -- of the ability to regulate greenhouse gas pollution. What's even more outrageous is that it does so by legislating against science: Murkowski's resolution overturns a comprehensive scientific finding that greenhouse gases hurt human health and welfare. Put simply: it would literally establish as the law of the land that greenhouse gases and climate change are not bad for people. Sign our urgent petition calling on your Senators to Vote NO on Senator Murkowski's attack on the Clean Air Act. We can't let Senator Murkowski or her fossil fuel-funded agenda succeed in gutting the Clean Air Act. Unfortunately, Murkowski only needs 51 votes in the Senate to get her way, and it's going to be very close. There is some good news, though: Senator Murkowski only has until June 7 to push her resolution through. That's why it's vital for each of us to put as much pressure on our Senators as we can this week. We know Repower America members like you can make a difference: We've already helped stop Senator Murkowski's "Dirty Air Act" twice in the last year. And with your help, we can do it again. Sign the petition demanding that your Senators stand up to Senator Murkowski and the fossil fuel lobby -- and Repower America members like you will deliver your petition in-person to Senate offices around the country this week. If we lose this vote, it will be a massive blow to efforts to solve the climate crisis and promote clean energy. And the national media will undoubtedly use this loss to suggest that climate and clean energy legislation lacks the momentum to pass this year. We're too close to a comprehensive clean energy bill to get derailed by big oil or their allies in Congress. Please add your voice now. Sign the urgent petition asking your Senator to protect the Clean Air Act. Thanks, Dave Boundy Campaign Manager The Climate Protection Action Fund's Repower America campaign P.S. As if her support for the Dirty Air Act isn't enough, Senator Murkowski also just single-handedly delayed the consideration of a Senate bill that would have raised the liability cap for oil companies during offshore oil spills2 -- trying to make sure that the oil industry doesn't pay for contaminating our oceans and coastline, destroying our jobs and our environment. Our elected representatives should work for us, not for big oil. Tell your Senators to vote against Senator Murkowski's Dirty Air Act. [1] Juliet Eilperin, "Murkowski and her lobbyist allies," The Washington Post, January 11, 2010. http://views.washingtonpost.com/climate-change/post-carbon/2010/01/murkowski_and_her_lobbyist_allies.html [2] Richard Simon and Margot Roosevelt, "Democrats' effort to increase oil spill liability stalls," Los Angeles Times, May 14, 2010. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/14/nation/la-na-oil-spill-new-20100514

From the Inbox - Tell your senator to oppose Senator Murkowski's attack on the Clean Air Act

Donate Join NRDC and help protect the planet's wildlife and wild places Explore Subscribe to our monthly newsletter, for news you can use Plug In Connect to Switchboard, the NRDC blog Reach Out Send messages in style with our beautiful nature postcards Update Use your Action Center Profile to manage your subscriptions and personal info May 17, 2010 Tell your senators to oppose Sen. Murkowski's attack on the Clean Air Act The Senate will likely vote this week on a measure sponsored by Senator Murkowski (R-AK) that would dismantle the Clean Air Act as a tool for combating global warming. Senator Murkowski's bill (and similar legislation introduced by Senator Rockefeller (D-WV)) would threaten public health and block the Environmental Protection Agency from holding the biggest polluters accountable for their global warming pollution. The Clean Air Act is a bedrock environmental law with a 40-year track record of cutting dangerous pollution to protect public health and the environment. In 2007 the Supreme Court ruled that the act covers global warming pollutants, and the Obama administration built on that ruling earlier this year by issuing clean vehicle standards that will cut both global warming pollution and gasoline consumption, saving consumers money and reducing America's dependence on oil. Senator Murkowski's bill would deny the science behind global warming and block the landmark new clean vehicle standards. If she succeeds in dismantling the Clean Air Act, new cars built over the next five years will guzzle 450 million barrels more oil, increasing our country's dangerous dependence on foreign and unsafe sources of oil. If she succeeds, the Clean Air Act will not be available to ensure that the largest power plants and factories use modern technology and cleaner energy to cut their global warming pollution. This is hardly the time to give big oil and dirty energy companies a bailout. Instead of moving backward by attacking the Clean Air Act, Congress should move quickly to enact the energy and climate legislation the country needs to build a clean energy economy, create jobs and protect the environment. What to do Send a message right away urging your senators to oppose and vote No on Senator Murkowski's attack on the Clean Air Act (S.J. Res 26).