Curbing the EPA’s Climate Change Madness
- Jun 8, 2010 - 1 -
The push to burden Americans with onerous regulations to rein in carbon emissions in the name of man-made global warming continues to receive chilly receptions among the public. This is not surprising given a strained economy and science demonstrating global cooling over the last decade.
Faced with similarly cool receptions among many lawmakers, the Obama administration is tacking in another direction expressed recently by cap and trade advocate Sen. John Kerry (D-MA): “If Congress can’t legislate a solution, the EPA will regulate one,” referring to handing over that authority to the Environmental Protection Agency. Such a power grab is unprecedented.
Fortunately, that lurch toward massive bureaucracy could be headed off by a congressional resolution expressing disapproval with the EPA’s planned imposition of regulations on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The Senate is scheduled to vote Thursday on the resolution, S.J. Res. 26, introduced by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). If passed, it could become a barometer on cap and trade support among lawmakers and help to squelch proposed cap and trade legislation in Congress.
Specifically, the Murkowski resolution would send a clear message to the White House that Congress rejects giving unelected bureaucrats the authority to laden industries, businesses, and individuals with hefty restrictions on carbon dioxide. Quite simply, neither the EPA nor Congress should regulate the gas—most of which occurs naturally in the atmosphere—under the auspices of curbing highly disputable human-induced climate change. But the EPA power grab is an end-run around Congress of heightened proportions.
The results of such EPA empowerment would be devastating. As expressed in its December “endangerment finding,” the agency intends to regulate factories and businesses, and, even closer to home, vehicles, schools, and churches, for starters. The result: increases in costs of energy and consumer products and loss of jobs—all of which would hit the poor especially hard. As then-candidate Barack Obama disclosed in 2008 while stumping for a regulatory approach, “[E]lectricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”
But this is a winnable issue. In 2009, Congress failed to impose on Americans a draconian bill to cap energy usage by industries and to force over-emitters to buy carbon “credits.” In the House, a cap and trade bill sponsored by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Edward Markey (D-MA) narrowly passed 219-212. But the Waxman-Markey bill never became law as the Senate, lacking necessary support, did not take up the measure for a vote.
Meanwhile, Sen. Murkowski’s resolution has attracted 41 cosponsors, a list that includes members from both sides of the political divide. An identical resolution in the House also has widespread support, with 124 representatives signed on as cosponsors.
The Senate vote is expected to be very close. Unlike most Senate votes, the Murkowski resolution requires only a simple majority, or 51 votes, to pass. And with 41 senators already officially behind the measure, the magic number 51 is well within reach.
With a lack of scientific evidence for humans affecting climate, and with unemployment rates hovering near 10 percent—rates not paralleled in a quarter-century—the push to regulate energy and thereby kill jobs and drive up energy costs is nonsensical. And to allow an unelected, unaccountable EPA staff to do so is foolhardy.
If you agree, please contact your senators and tell them to vote “yes” on Sen. Murkowski’s resolution (S.J. Res. 26) to express the will of the Senate that the EPA should not regulate greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.
Further Learning
Learn more about: Family, Living, Finances, Citizenship, Legislation, Science, Environment,
The comment thread for this article is now closed. Please use our contact form.
{comment_total} comments
1 On Jun 9th, 2010, at 12:22pm, Roy Holmes wrote:
Cap and Trade is obviously just another power grab by the current administration. It would further devastate our economy, do little to help the environment and is not based on sound science. We have experienced global cooling for the past 10 years, and the 2009-2010 winter, which was followed by a cold spring, was the coldest in recent history.
Thank you for your work on this.
Roy Holmes