Excellent read on Lindsey Graham's remarks and others... http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/03/energy-only-bill-lindsey-graham-half-assed/
D On Feb 8, 1:17 pm, Greg Rau <[email protected]> wrote: > While we seriously ponder Plan A/B options like geoengineering to > save the planet, the following political leadership disconnect with > the need for action is truly breathtaking. The WSJ bemoans the > "death-grip" of the ethanol lobby, but surely that is nothing > compared to the unmentioned power wielded by more conventional fuel > interests? -G > > FEBRUARY 7, 2010, WSJ > > Democratic Climate Revolt > > A bipartisan effort to stop the EPA's anticarbon crusade. > > The Obama Administration has been moving full-speed ahead on > anticarbon regulation, never mind waiting for Congress to pass a > bill. But now opposition is building among senior Democrats, with two > powerful committee Chairmen introducing a bill last week to bar the > Environmental Protection Agency from declaring that carbon is a > dangerous pollutant. > > EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson is busy writing new rules that would > let her drive a tax-and-regulation bulldozer through the U.S. economy > under laws never meant to apply to greenhouse gases. Ms. Jackson is > expected to issue new anticarbon regulations for cars and trucks next > month before moving on to power plants and other industries. > > This is all too much for Missouri's Ike Skelton and Minnesota's > Collin Peterson, the Chairmen of the House Armed Services and > Agriculture Committees, respectively. Along with Missouri Republican > Jo Ann Emerson, they are pushing a two-page bill that would amend the > Clean Air Act to restore Congress's original intent and strip CO2 and > other greenhouse gases from the statutory language. > > This is bipartisanship we can believe in. Such legislation would > vaporize the EPA's "endangerment finding" for carbon and thus require > the Administration to use democratic debate and persuasion if it > really wants to reshape the energy markets and impose huge new costs > on American consumers. What a thought. > > "If Congress doesn't do something soon, the EPA is going to cram > these regulations through all on their own," Mr. Peterson said. "I > have no confidence that EPA can regulate greenhouse gases under the > Clean Air Act without severe harm to all taxpayers." > > Added Mr. Skelton: "Simply put, we cannot tolerate turning over the > regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to unelected bureaucrats at > EPA. America's energy and environmental policies should be set by > Congress." Yes, they should be. > > The Skelton-Peterson-Emerson bill follows a similar effort by North > Dakota Democrat Earl Pomeroy, not to mention Alaska Republican Lisa > Murkowski's coming "disapproval resolution" in the Senate that has > the support of Democrats Mary Landrieu, Ben Nelson and Blanche > Lincoln. > > Our one caveat here is that Messrs. Skelton and Peterson are doing > the right thing for the wrong reason-specifically, to defend the > ethanol industry. Their bill includes provisions that would expand > the definition of renewable fuels and make it easier for corn ethanol > and soy biodiesel to qualify for federal tax credits. This is despite > the growing shelf of studies that common crop-based fuels increase > carbon emissions because of land-use changes and deforestation. > > In any case, Ms. Jackson released final rules last week that would > allow ethanol to maintain its mandate on the U.S. fuel supply, > requiring her agency to back down from the more restrictive and > supposedly science-based rules that it had proposed last year. Ms. > Jackson insisted that EPA wasn't "dumbing down" its regulations, but > her bow to the ethanol lobby revealed the death-grip it exerts on > Congress. > > Yet in the case of carbon regulation-an even dumber policy-we'll take > what we can get. If the power of farm-state politicians ends up > stopping the EPA's global-warming power grab, it would be the first > good thing ethanol has done for the country. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
