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

Post Carbon

EPA's climate overture doesn't impress Rockefeller

By Juliet Eilperin

Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa P. Jackson's climate timetable isn't enough to satisfy Sen. John D. Rockefeller (D-WVa.), he declared Monday night.

After Rockefeller and several other coal-state Democrats complained that the EPA needs to hold off on regulating greenhouse gases, Jackson sent a letter Monday explaining that the agency would not start regulating big emitters until 2011 at the earliest.

But Rockefeller issued a statement saying he still intends to clip EPA's wings by drafting legislation that would block the agency from acting under the Clean Air Act in the immediate future.

His statement is below:

"I am glad to see that the EPA is showing some willingness to set their timetable for regulation in to the future - this is good progress but I am concerned it may not go far enough.

"I believe we need to set in stone through legislation enough time for Congress to consider a comprehensive energy bill.

"EPA actions in this area would have enormous implications on clean coal state economies and these issues need to be handled carefully and appropriately dealt with by the Congress, not in isolation by a federal environmental agency.

"We cannot gamble on our future especially at a time when so many people are hurting.

"As I evaluate the EPA's letter, I remain committed to presenting legislation that would provide Congress the space it needs to craft a workable policy that will protect jobs and stimulate the economy."


Juliet Eilperin

 |  February 22, 2010; 8:40 PM ET Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Jackson gives timeline for climate regulation | Next: Van Jones returns


Please report offensive comments below.

"Church of Global Warming"?? Where do you get that stuff - an oil industry newsletter?

The scientific consensus is explained here and accepted by these organizations and many more:

* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS):

* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS):
* State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):

* The Royal Society of the UK (RS) -

* American Geophysical Union (AGU):

* American Meteorological Society (AMS)

* American Institute of Physics (AIP):

* National Center for Atmospheric Research (

* American Meteorological Society (AMS):

* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS): name a few organizations. Last time I checked, religious affiliations were more common among the deniers......

Posted by: 350orbust | February 25, 2010 1:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Only in the church of Global Warming does anyone believe that carbon dioxide-induced warming presents a threat to our future.

Posted by: snorbertzangox | February 23, 2010 1:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment

One has to wonder whether Rockefeller sees the incredible irony in his words:

"We cannot gamble on our future ..."

Yes, let's inhibit and constrain actions to set the United States on a path to reducing carbon emissions because, well, we can gamble on our future when it comes to climate disruption ...

Posted by: siegead1 | February 23, 2010 8:01 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Post a Comment

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company