Views and debates on climate change policy
Home | Panelists | Staff Blog | RSS

Post Carbon

GOP Threatens to Veto EPA "Endangerment" Finding

By David A. Fahrenthold

Having failed in a previous attempt to squash the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to regulate greenhouse gases, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) is trying another.

In a press conference with other Republican Senators Thursday, Murkowski said she would introduce legislation under the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress a kind of veto over decisions by the federal bureaucracy.

Murkowski wants Congress to use this veto on the EPA's recent finding that greenhouse gases are a danger to public health. That decision, known as the "endangerment" finding in environmental-wonk circles, sets in motion the regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

Even the EPA says that this is not the best way to deal with greenhouse gases: the Obama Administration has called for Congress to pass legislation with a trading scheme that lets polluters buy and sell the right to emit.

But Murkowski said she didn't like the idea that the threat of EPA action is a stick designed to force Congress to act.

"The administration is, through the use of the EPA, trying to strong-arm Congress into passing economically harmful legislation by threatening to impose economically harmful regulations," Murkowski said, according to a transcript of the press conference.

Earlier this year, Murkowski tried to insert language into legislation that would have stopped the EPA from using money to regulate greenhouse gases for a year. That was rejected by Democratic leadership.

Her current tactic was also endorsed Thursday by Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), whose climate brainstorming with Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) has spawned hopes for a bipartisan climate bill.

"You will find a bipartisan congressional reaction to this problem created by the EPA," Graham said, according to the transcript.

But Murkowski's new tactic will still be hard to pull off.

It would have to be passed by a majority in both the House and Senate, and signed by President Obama--the same president who chose the EPA leadership that made the decision in the first place.

In a statement, the EPA said its decision was based on "broad and overwhelming scientific consensus that greenhouse gas pollution endangers public health and welfare." It was prompted by a U.S. Supreme Court decision that ordered the EPA to decide whether or not greenhouse gases really were a danger.

By

David A. Fahrenthold

 |  December 17, 2009; 5:28 PM ET Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg     Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: 8 Questions about the climate talks in Copenhagen | Next: Obama huddles with world leaders

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.



No kidding, Murkowski, this would be difficult to pull off, and for good reason.
It would turn the Party of No into the Party of Stop, bringing our government to a grinding halt, with the GOP trying to veto every regulation that oil & coal lobbyists object to.
To Americans who are questioning the science behind the consensus on global warming, keep this in mind: There is no widely recognized international scientific organization that denies global warming is taking place.
We must move into the future and into a sustainable green economy. China and India are pouring investment funding into renewable energy resources. Let's act to move ahead of our competitors and make America a leader in green jobs!

Posted by: post-it2 | December 18, 2009 1:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Amazing. Her own state is being engulfed in climate change effects, and she does this to them. If Alaska were a country, this would be treason.

Posted by: B2O2 | December 17, 2009 7:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company