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

Post Carbon

Lisa v. Lisa on climate

By Juliet Eilperin

News flash: Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) isn't so pleased with Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa P. Jackson.

We know, we know, you've heard about these Lisa v. Lisa faceoffs before. But now that EPA's moving ahead with regulating greenhouse gases, it's only getting more serious.

On March 5, Murkowski sent Jackson a series of 13 questions asking how the agency would seek to regulate carbon dioxide emitters under the Clean Air Act in 2011 and beyond.

On Friday, Jackson sent a reply answering a couple of Murkowski's questions, estimating that 1,700 emitters would face regulation in 2011 and 3,000 in 2013.

That didn't make the other Lisa very happy.

Murkowski wrote that "it does not seem probable that additional correspondence will elicit a sufficient level of detail for me and other members of Congress to understand what your agency is preparing to do, and the consequences that will accompany those actions. (READ: It's not worth writing you anymore.)

So instead, the senator "respectfully requests" a meeting with Jackson in her office the week of April 12.

In the meantime, Murkowski's office is helpfully reminding reporters to attend an event Tuesday in which the Affordable Power Alliance is releasing a report showing that EPA's regulation of greenhouse gases would disproportionately hurt African-Americans and Latinos.

Two of the members of the Alliance, the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) and the National Black Chamber of Commerce, have accepted funds from Exxon-Mobil in recent years. But that must just be a coincidence.


Juliet Eilperin

 |  March 29, 2010; 4:44 PM ET Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: EPA affirms delay in regulating power plant emissions | Next: Sen. Lugar unveils climate plan


Please report offensive comments below.

Dear lifestyle2000cc:

You were confused long before this article appeared, but it is just more reason to be confused.

The EPA and the Post's Juliet would have you believe that 'greenhouse gases' are harmful. The primary greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide, which your body produces and passes into the air each time you breath. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is necessary to grow plants and has never affected anyone's asthma or upper respiratory illness in the slightest. The fact that you are confused about this is not accidental, as the EPA and others intentionally try to confuse you so you will support their desire to regulate CO2.

The EPA is failing to regulate poisonous emissions from coal plants and other polluters while they divert congress and their own resources to chase CO2 fantasies.

Regulating CO2 will be harmful to large parts of the US economy by increasing the cost of electricity, food, and everything else. More manufacturing jobs will be lost to places like China where the government will not be placing similar nonsense restrictions on their own manufacturing industry.

Minorities might be harmed more than most other folks because minorities have less money to pay for basic necessities on average.

Juliet repeats the Al Gore religious mantra that the oil companies are paying the skeptics. The oil companies have long known that their profits can only increase as these nonsense regulations take effect. Only a little actual research on her part would find that the Al Gore minions take in far more money from oil companies than the skeptics ever did. For example, oil companies and the US Government fund the UEA/CRU folks where the climate-gate emails originated and the main skeptic web site gets no money from the oil companies.

Most likely the EPA will be forbidden from even starting the regulatory programs they are trying to hide from public review (as shown by the article), first by court action then by congressional action.

Posted by: AGWsceptic99 | March 30, 2010 9:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I guess this article confuses me. First of all, why would regulating greenhouse gasses hurt people of colour? it would help create more kids without Asthma and or upper respiratory illnesses. Second, just because members of any Alliance, CORE or NBCC have accepted funds from Exxon-Mobil in recent years, does not mean that African Americans or Latinos are living better or are able to move out of areas that do violate the EPA regulation of greenhouse gases because it's still going on. It's the 21st Century, Murkowski needs to help enforce regulations in a global effort to create better air to breathe for all Americans.

Posted by: lifestyle2000cc | March 29, 2010 6:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Post a Comment

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company