As widely anticipated, Republicans in the House of Representatives have wasted no time with their efforts to neuter the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), using the first two days of legislative business last week to introduce several bills that would strip the watchdog of its right to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
The newly empowered Republicans tabled three separate bills, all of which aim to thwart efforts by the Obama administration and the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, and power and industrial plants, using the existing Clean Air Act.
A bill introduced by representative Ted Poe of Texas would block the EPA from drawing on any funds to implement and enforce regulations covering greenhouse gas emissions, while a separate bill tabled by representative Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee would amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit the regulation of greenhouse gases under the legislation.
Meanwhile, representative Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia introduced a more modest bill that would delay EPA efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions by two years -- a proposal that has also been pursued by some Democrat legislators from coal states, including Jay Rockefeller.
The three new bills represent the first shots in what is threatening to become a ferocious battle between Republicans and Democrats over the EPA's right to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and the direction of the Obama Administration's wider climate change strategy.
Further measures are expected to be announced by Republicans in the coming months as they seek to roll back regulations they believe will damage the economy and drive up energy costs.
For example, representative Fred Upton, the Michigan Republican who is the new chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, revealed last weekend that he is considering deploying the rarely used Congressional Review Act to strip the EPA of its powers.
However, Democrats are also preparing to mount a robust defense of the EPA's right to regulate emissions under the Clean Air Act, with Senator Barbara Boxer, chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, insisting she will use "every tool available" to oppose Republican efforts to dilute the EPA's powers.
Speaking to reporters last week, Boxer offered a detailed defense of the EPA's legal right to regulate greenhouse gas emissions in response to a Supreme Court ruling. She also rejected suggestions from Upton that the EPA was over-reaching and only acting because Congress failed to approve new climate change laws.
"When the new chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee says EPA cannot pass by regulation what Congress failed to pass by law, let me correct him: Congress passed our Clean Air laws, Republican presidents signed them, and those are the laws the EPA is following," Boxer said. "Let me send a clear message to Chairman Upton ... I want to tell him that I will use every tool available to me as chair of this committee and as senator from California to oppose any legislative effort that threatens the health, or safety, or well-being of the people of America -- that includes his desire to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from carrying out its responsibilities under the Clean Air Act."
In related news, the start of the 112th Congress also featured the official closure of the Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming, the only Congressional committee dedicated to tackling climate change.
This article originally appeared at BusinessGreen.com and is reprinted with permission.
Image CC licensed by Flickr user kevindooley.
Great job, Republicans! Keep
Great job, Republicans! Keep up your ongoing fight to stop rediculous government, and save our economy. You guys are the best.
Think Global, Act Local, By
Think Global, Act Local, By Stephen F. Rudin, Bankruptcy/Divorce Attorney
The Philadelphia Convention (Constitutional Convention) convened on May 25, 1787, at the State House (now Independence Hall) in Philadelphia. The convention originally met to modify the Articles of Confederation. The Country, bankrupt by the Revolutionary War, needed more than the Articles to recover. The hidden agenda, technically illegal, was to create a new government structure. That was 1787 and George Washington was chosen to preside over this new undertaking in “republicanism.” The final outcome was the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, a new nation born of the “rule of law.” Democracy then was considered a tyranny of the majority. However, in the early nineteenth century, democratic philosophy gained favor. Regardless of name, any political philosophy must balance individual freedom with the common good.
John Adams in 1776 put it this way. “Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue and is the only foundation of republics. There must be a positive passion for the public good, the public interest, honour, power and glory, established in the minds of the people, or there can be no republican government, nor any real liberty: and this public passion must be superior to all private passions. Men must be ready, they must pride themselves, and be happy to sacrifice their private pleasures, passions, and interests, nay their private friendships and dearest connections, when they stand in competition with the rights of society.”
In 1961, Dwight D. Eisenhower cautions us: “As we peer into society’s future, we--you and I, and our government--must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.”
Regardless of political philosophy, we are quickly headed toward a world of seven billion people. That is less than half an acre of food producing land per person. As population and global commerce increase, individual freedom versus common good becomes a greater concern. It is clear that resources are being used faster than replaced. Three or four years ago, if you were asking yourself how a regular family could afford a home then today, you might be asking yourself how can this increasing population continue to be supported. At some point, there will not be enough resources on earth to continue our growth-based economy. Hence, “sustainable” is a word we expect to hear more often. Hopefully, it will be sustainable for all and not just a few.
Think global and act local! These words might conjure negative images, but that is not the picture intended here. The point is, what can we do locally to ensure a place for later generations? The growing polarized split in political views is not working for the Country. Engaging in a meaningful dialog requires listening and thinking before speaking. Name calling and mud slinging is just plain lazy and skirts the real issues. I leave now with the following question. What resources and talent do we have at hand that can best improve our “local” quality of life?
Anonymous. You have a point.
Anonymous. You have a point. My mother's cousin was Walter J. Podbielniak, a scientist. I used to take the train with my grandmother to see her brother, Walter's father in Buffalo, NY as a kid. Walter was an inventor. He invented the process to automate penicillin and made a fortune along with saving millions of lives. He also invented method of refining CRUDE OIL into products. His extractors were called PODs. He also invented areas of refrigeration which we still use...he was prolific. His first laboratory was near the rest of us relatives, on the south side of Chicago - on 8300 block of South Chicago Ave, not very far from President Obama's home near the Univ. of Chicago, also on the south side near 55th and South Shore Drive. I know this all only because I recently helped a Polish scientist in Poland to piece together Walter's history for a scientific article.
Don't blame science for the problems that exists today. Science is so pure, especially with the ability for peer review. What you have eluded to is that we should not conduct science related research to avoid abuse. Think about this again. This country's elected legislators have sold off the people, and into a down-spiral that is temporarily propped up bubbles. My husband is an attorney and here is one of his articles for our local newspaper. I'll put it into another post. Give your feed back on your views.
Can other people comment if
Can other people comment if you know of any methods to start and investigation of the entire Republican Party and begin action towards impeachment of them all? Based on everything I see and read, they are committing treason against mankind. They will be stopped one way or another. I would rather start using legal means and non-lethal means. Everyone needs to realize that corporations are merely our vendors, not our Gods. You see God every day when the sun rises, and looking up at the stars, experiencing a seed as it sprouts into eventual food. Religion and our human made rules and laws are comprised of made up stories, and people's ideas of how we should conduct ourselves. The Republican party has run amuck and must be disbanded, one way or another. If a single environmental law is stopped or overturned, they'll start having their decision placed into their backyard to live in and breathe.
THE DENIERS HAVE WON As a
THE DENIERS HAVE WON
As a former climate change believer, may I personally apologize for condemning billions of children to death by CO2 for 25 years, just to get them to turn the lights out more often. I had become the fear mongering neocon of CO2 environMENTALism as I issued CO2 death warrants to YOUR family and mine. I apologize for calling: cold -warm, warm -hot and for calling all bad weather -Humanity’s fault. I apologize for splitting responsible environmentalism and dragging progressivism down with it. I apologize for not endorsing population control instead of impossible climate control. I apologize for scaring children with: “unstoppable warming” and “out of control warming and “runaway warming“ and not having the honesty to call it THE END OF THE WORLD.
I’m sorry I forgot this MOST important fact:
-that it was the trusted scientists we bowed to and their evil chemicals that made environmentalism necessary in the first place.
We former believers admit to being pretend rebels as we were spoon-fed by corporations and politicians promising to lower the seas. The neocons have never admitted their Iraq War WMD’s and the scientists have never admitted responsibility for their chemicals that are causing cancer. I admit my ideology’s WMD’s that led us to another Bush-like false war against a false enemy. Please forgive me?