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

Post Carbon

Rockefeller pushes to rein in EPA

By Juliet Eilperin

Sen. John D. Rockefeller (D-WVa.) will introduce legislation Thursday to impose a two-year moratorium on the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to regulate greenhouse gases from power plants and other stationary emitters, a move that could undermine the Obama administration's plan to pursue a cap on carbon emissions in the face of congressional opposition.

Rockefeller's bill, one of several recent congressional efforts to curb the EPA's authority to address climate change under the Clean Air Act, highlights the resistance the administration will face if it attempts to limit carbon dioxide through regulation. Obama and his top deputies have repeatedly said they would prefer for Congress to set mandatory, nationwide limits on greenhouse gas emissions, but the EPA is moving ahead with plans to do so if legislation fails to pass this year.

"Today, we took important action to safeguard jobs, the coal industry, and the entire economy as we move toward clean coal technology," Rockefeller said. "This legislation will issue a two-year suspension on EPA regulation of greenhouse gases from stationary sources--giving Congress the time it needs to address an issue as complicated and expansive as our energy future. Congress, not the EPA, must be the ideal decision-maker on such a challenging issue."

Republicans, too, have repeatedly tried to rein in the EPA's climate authority--Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) has introduced a resolution of disapproval that would overturn the agency's scientific finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare, and House Republicans introduced their own version of the resolution this week. But Rockefeller's effort is especially significant because it points to growing unease among Democrats over the prospect of the administration tackling climate change without explicit congressional approval.

Three Senate Democrats--Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), Mary Landrieu (La.) and Ben Nelson (Neb.)--are co-sponsoring Murkowksi's resolution. House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin C. Peterson (D-Minn.) and Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) have introduced a similar measure, and House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick J. Rahall (D-WVa), along with Democratic Reps. Alan Mollohan (WVa) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.), will introduce a companion bill to Rockefeller's. In addition, Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.) has introduced a measure that would strip the EPA of its authority to regulate pollution linked to global warming.

A 2007 Supreme Court ruling gave the EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, and by the end of this month the agency is slated to impose the first-ever greenhouse gas limits on emissions from cars and light-trucks. While that set of rules--the product of a deal between the auto industry, the federal government and more than a dozen states--is not controversial, EPA's plan to then target power plants and other industrial facilities has sparked serious opposition.

Environmentalists have opposed any attempts to undermine the EPA's Clean Air Act authority, seeing it as both a dangerous precedent and a serious blow to the administration's ability to cope with climate change if Congress fails to pass a bill. While the House passed climate legislation in June, the Senate is still divided on whether to adopt a bill setting limits on greenhouse gases.

Tim Wirth, president of the U.N. Foundation, said the House-passed bill already provided several concessions to the coal industry, and urged President Obama to stop Rockefeller's legislation.

"The president ought to veto it, period," Wirth said. "This is a huge affront to his authority, and it's exactly what the coal industry wants. The coal industry has everything it wants in legislation, and now it wants more."

Two weeks ago a group of coal-state Democrats--led by Rockefeller--wrote EPA administrator Lisa P. Jackson, asking her to outline her timeline for regulating greenhouse gas emitters under the Clean Air Act. Jackson replied that she would not target major emitters of carbon dioxide until 2011, and many smaller facilities would not face regulation until 2016.

But this move did not satisfy Rockefeller, who usually serves as one of the administration's close allies.

"This is a positive change and good progress, but I am concerned it may not be enough time," he said. "We must set this delay in stone and give Congress enough time to consider a comprehensive energy bill to develop the clean coal technologies we need. At a time when so many people are hurting, we need to put decisions about clean coal and our energy future into the hands of the people and their elected representatives, not a federal environmental agency."

By

Juliet Eilperin

 |  March 4, 2010; 9:33 AM ET Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: More bucks for advanced biofuels? | Next: Byrd won't back Rockefeller's attempt to limit EPA power

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.



Eugene23,

EPA is a scare mongering activist organization that distorts the sciences of toxicology and epidemiology and statistics in furtherance of its fundamentalist green religion.

EPA ascribes risk to various chemicals by extrapolating the results of extremely high-dose animal (rats and mice mostly) laboratory exposure data to extremely low-dose exposures. EPA ignores the fact that there is a dose rate of every chemical (measured in milligrams of toxicant per kilogram of body weight per day) below which the toxicant has no effect on humans or even animals. We all have immune systems that fight of the effects of poisons and we only succumb if the dose exceeds the capacity of our immune systems to respond.

After EPA has grossly overestimated the dose of a toxicant that will cause putative harm to the rat (or mouse), EPA proceeds to divide that dose by a factor of 1,000 in their words “to account for interspecies differences and exposures to exceptionally sensitive individuals. They do that without knowing whether humans are more or less sensitive than rats. It turns out that rats are probably the most sensitive species on earth to the effects of chlorinated dioxins and furans, for example. Rats are about a hundred times more sensitive than guinea pigs for example. EPA in its infinite wisdom does not factor this into its estimates of the safe dose for humans by 1,000, as is their usual procedure.

If you would like to read a representative example of EPA’s abuse of science, go to their website and read the summary for acetaldehyde, which is at http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0290.htm. It is technical, but you can understand it. You can ask yourself how EPA got from exposure of rats at 9 to 700 mg per cubic meter with little of no effect to a safe level for human exposure of 0.009 mg per cubic meter. The extrapolation for determination of carcinogenicity is even more absurd. EPA then uses these fictitious risk estimates to change the ways that we do things, usually at greater costs. These increased costs retard economic growth and probably cause more risk than the toxicants at their environmental concentrations.

Furthermore, by its own estimating procedures EPA says that the most polluted atmosphere in any city in the US causes 60 additional cancers per million persons over an average lifetime. In other words, if you live in the most polluted atmosphere in the country your lifetime risk of cancer increases from 330,000 per million to 330,060 per million. How could you even tell? By the way, this is getting cancer, not dying of cancer; cancer is more treatable every day.

I think CDC and USDA are much better deals.

Posted by: snorbertzangox | March 8, 2010 5:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment

http://www.youtube.com/user/votevets

See it. Our troops are fighting and dying while those who are not fighting for our freedoms, instead fight efforts to make ourselve energy independent. Stop sending money to Iran to buy the explosive devices that are killing our troops. Whatever it takes to not buy oil and send our money to Iran, is what we must do.

We need strong renewable energy legislation to create the Jobs and Industries to become Energy Independent and Improve our National Security.

Posted by: liveride | March 7, 2010 11:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Let's see... we have the USDA to protect us from foods, meds, etc. Sometimes they fail and people die. All in all they catch those little bad things in time to save many lives. I'm glad our government supports the USDA.

Let's see... we have the CDC to protect us from bad things that cause diseases. Each year the CDC gets smarter, and they have been really helpful in keeping many people alive and kicking. It's protection we need and one day, (and that day will come) they will alert the human race of its possible demise, and they may be able to save us. So I'm glad our government sees fit to support them.

Let's see... we have the EPA to protect us from harmful tiny elements that we release into the air, earth and water. It's controversial because 1)it's a relatively new idea that our waste can kill us,
2)it's complicated stuff, 3)the general public, (me, included) doesn't understand all the various aspects of this science and, 4) we think we can step outside to pick up the morning paper and determine the weather. It's a method we've been able to depend on.

What we don't understand, or don't want to learn, is what big time weather changes can do to our world. Scientists do understand and they are telling us, but we're used to the morning paper science.

We know the CDC or USDA are important. We don't question their methods much. We trust
them. The EPA's decisions, unlike the the USDA and CDC, can affect people's livelihoods and some people's great wealth. So, there is much opposition to it. It's self-serving opposition, but understandable.

As the population grows, we'll need more and more of everything. Industries and waste will thrive. We need the EPA now. We'll need it in the future. Might as well let them do their job like we do the USDA and CDC.

The sun is out today so I'm leaving now to walk in the park and suck in some fresh chemicals. Goods ones, I trust.

Posted by: Eugene23 | March 6, 2010 1:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Rockefeller would like to retire on his own schedule, and not be thrown out on his behind. Every once in awhile he remembers that he represents a coal-producing state.

Posted by: JBaustian | March 5, 2010 12:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment

It is about time that the shackles are put on the enviromental movement. Like most movements there has been good done by it, in some respects alot of good.
But like must movements (after the intial stuff is taken care of)it starts taking on a life of its own, it becomes self important, looks for new enemies & new causes. It becomes a bull in everybody elses china shop. Even worse pureness starts to seep in. Solving what is considered a problem 80% is not good enough. 90% is not good enough. 100% is the only acceptable result and by God we will step on anybody to make this happen.
We are real close to being in a depression (there is still a good shot that we might end up there yet)and yet, lets worry about CO2. This group is determined to kill the economy, put you out of work, tell you how you to live your life and they are not kidding.
This attempt at carbon regulation taken to the extreme (which if history is any guide -take your pick of subjects - you know what will happen - Hell, we are already hearing about how we should not have babies as they will increase the carbon foot print of man.)is the equivelent of being ruled by a dictator. Your job, your freedom to make a decision, your freedom to live as you see fit are at risk by this group and this regualtion.

Push back, real life is messy and that includes good old CO2

Posted by: commonsense70 | March 4, 2010 11:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment

It is about time Senator Rockefeller came to his senses! Going green as a mandate by the President and Congress, as a whole, will put us in a hole so deep we will become a third rate power to China and India in the next 5 years.

We need to exploit every natural resource we have available to re-establish ourselves as a viable and thriving nation and economy before we trade off our lives to those who want to destroy us; and if you do not understand this principle, you are ignorant!

Posted by: marinervn6971 | March 4, 2010 10:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment

http://www.youtube.com/user/votevets

See it. Our troops are fighting and dying while those who are not fight efforts to make ourselve energy independent. Stop sending money to Iran to buy the explosive devices that are killing our troops. Whatever it takes to not buy oil and send our money to Iran, is what we must do.

We need strong renewable energy legislation to create the Jobs and Industries to become Energy Independent and Improve our National Security.

Posted by: liveride | March 4, 2010 10:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The disease seems to be spread across both those who consider themselves liberal and those who call themselves conservative. What disease? It is yet unnamed, but presents in comments to articles as name calling and blindingly stupid comments. Those on the republican side are worse, but not by a whole lot. Would you say LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER to the face of someone you know? Do you believe that a significant plurality of the citizens in your country are evil? You who want to mine forever: Does the complete and irreparable destruction of our common heritage matter at all? Is there nothing left in this country that you care about other than having large industrial corporations continue to make money by using up what has not yet been destroyed? Do you live in West Virginia where the rivers are pouring pollution into Chesapeake Bay because of uncontrolled destructions of the remaining forests? Can you honestly answer YES to this question? If this attitude is allowed to control our national discussion, there will not be much of value left to fight over. Our future home will resemble the areas of the Middle East where deserts replaced forests. What a great future to leave your descendants.

Posted by: entomon | March 4, 2010 10:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment

LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER

Posted by: djmcfly | March 4, 2010 10:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment

What does it take to prevent politicians who accept bribe money from the conglomerates and corporations to prostitute their votes to pass laws and deregulations to financially and legally benefit their corporate pimps?
Conflict of Interest and Collusion is against the law. right?

Posted by: CurtJ | March 4, 2010 9:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment

rockefeller - just another politician pandering to his constituents. shame on him, indeed. i usually agree with his stances on the issues. but this is just another example the "system" is broken, we have a "political class" of people and that politician becomes a career choice as opposed to a temporary period of public service. so now elected officials are doing what they need to do to et re-elected (and keep their jobs and considerable lifetime benefits). and instead of federally-financed elections, we have a "market-driven" election with candidates and parties (Republican and Democratic National Committees) being the equivalent of "companies and products" and they advertise so we "buy." and the "commercials" are not necessarily true. negative ads will be greater than ever with the recent supreme court decision. THE SYSTEM IS VERY BROKEN!!!

Posted by: crash52 | March 4, 2010 9:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Earth First, We'll mine the other planets later.

Posted by: ssmorehouse | March 4, 2010 9:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Clean coal. Pshaw. Clean coal makes as much sense as chocolate covered feces.

Posted by: steveboyington | March 4, 2010 8:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment

At some level normal economics resolves the 'CO2' debate.

West Virginia's mines are in decline. It's no longer a matter of 'if the coal runs out', it's a matter of when the coal runs out. Global coal prices are skyrocketing, 28% in the last year alone.

The coal and natural gas people will all talk about 100's of years of reserves, they tend to start mumbling when asked 'at what price'. Certainly there is at 500 years of offshore coal.

Somehow I think undersea coal mining is going to be way more expensive then windmills and solar panels.

So reasonable people could disagree as to whether to let the coal industry quietly fade into the sunset or whether it needs to be taken out and shot.

Posted by: SoldiersDad | March 4, 2010 7:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment

@GREGBOO: Ads from the industry cite that we have about 100 years of domestic natural gas reserves (since these ads come from the industry, I have to think it's likely a bit less than that). Mind you, that's at CURRENT usage levels--changing all cars over to LNG would obviously fractionalize that! Not to mention new gas power plants being built, etc. Natural gas can be a part of the solution, but it is not THE solution.

Also, there is a way to not have "lifetime politicians." It's called voting their opponents into office--no need to pass laws to do so. But be assured that conservatives are hardly immune from taking money from lobbyists (and Rockefeller was rich well before becoming a Senator).

@all the shills: Just because you disagree with scientific research hardly makes the research "BS." You and folks like Sen. Inhofe are masters of claiming any science you disagree with (basically, all of it, it seems) is "BS," "incomplete," "inconclusive," etc. Clearly, you don't know how science actually works--guess that's a failing of our education system.

Posted by: exerda | March 4, 2010 6:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Go Rockefeller Go! One sensible lefty (protecting his constituents).

Vote the Conservative Candidate!

2010, 2012, let't take it all back!

Change laws to curb LIFETIME JOBS as Politicians. Take away benefits. Give them the healthcare we all get, medicare and medicaide! Give them Social Security for retirement!

They go into office with some means... come out RICH!! HOW IS THAT?

Posted by: GregBoo | March 4, 2010 5:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment

There are all kinds of studies about how waste from factory animal farms damage the environment, if you ever looked it would take 20 minutes to prove that this is the case unless they have really good waste water treatment.

The Steel Mills left because they did not update their factories so the Japanese started producing better steel cheaper. I am not aware of single industry that left because of the EPA. If labor costs 1/10th of what it does here, we are not going to keep the jobs with 100 year old factories, and why would a company build a new one here.
BTW a lot of the Right Wing Posters seem to use the same phrasing, are they one person, or just cutting and pasting from one of Exxon's propaganda sites?

Posted by: Muddy_Buddy_2000 | March 4, 2010 5:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment

All fake. ALGORE SCIENCE.

Control the liberal radicals in the EPA and other agencies. Congress should be the branch of government that makes laws, not EPA or judges ruling from the bench to overturn congress/people.

If... IF... the leadership really wanted to do something:

1. Start Nuclear Plants now (mentioned, but not started)

2. Start immediately changing our cars to Natural Gas (which we have so much of), which Ford and others already make for Canada, France, etc...

3. Drill baby Drill!

4. Work on clean air technology to fix the coal and other energy plants.

Posted by: GregBoo | March 4, 2010 5:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Eilperin is spewing out her nonsense again. Amazing how she's able to keep her job publishing unsubstantiated "science" like it is gospel. If someone did the fact checking as sloppily as she did on the political desk she would be fired. Just amazing.

VOTE REPUBLICAN!!!

Posted by: A1965bigdog | March 4, 2010 5:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Rockafeller? Hmm. Sounds like the most responsible vote I've heard of in a LOOOONNNNNNNGGGGGGGGG time. Stop the Dumbocrats for pushing this BS "science" left wing pinko nonsense down our throats. Good for him!!!

VOTE REPUBLICAN!!!

Posted by: A1965bigdog | March 4, 2010 5:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment

NOW THAT IS WHAT I CALL INCOMPREHENSIBLE IRRESPONSIBILITY !!

VOTE THEM ALL OUT THEY ARE NOT FOR THE PEOPLE THERE FOR BIG BUSINESS

Posted by: yourmomscalling | March 4, 2010 5:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment

So if we don't regulate greenhouse gas production through legislation (laws setting limits) -- how do we lower the levels that are killing the planet?

Without legal limits, how do we lower gh-gas production??

It obviously is not going to happen voluntarily.

Posted by: jcluma | March 4, 2010 5:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment

j2hess,

All of your claims are the output of various activist groups. I would very much like for you to document that mainstream scientists in the various fields accept any of those putative harms.

Insofar as I know, some have posited that hormone compounds in water may conceivably affect.

I know of no evidence that the slight reduction in alkalinity has caused any deleterious effect in the oceans. I do know of several laboratory studies that have shown augmented growth of coral-type organisms with enriched carbon dioxide concentration in sea water.

I have heard allegations of suffering downstream from hog farms, but know of no documentation.

In addition, yes, we need documentation for without documentation we have nothing more substantial than the “word on the street”.

Posted by: snorbertzangox | March 4, 2010 4:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Conservator,

When we need expert analysis of Health Care, we'll call you.

Otherwise, I'll put my trust in Atmospheric Scientists who actually
specialize in the study of climate change.

Posted by: kerrd | March 4, 2010 4:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment

If you say the lie, "clean coal", often enought, people will start to believe it. Coal is NOT clean! Blowing up mountain tops, pollutioning the stream and dumping mercury in our drinking waters is far from clean.

Posted by: BringYourOwnBags | March 4, 2010 4:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Dear snorbertzangox;

While some forms of pollution are declining, other forms are increasing. There are chemicals similar to hormones which are disrupting fetal development and adult sexual function. People living downstream and downwind of hog confinement operations a suffering serious consequences. In the oceans, acidification (which you euphemize as lowering of alkalinity - they're the same thing) is causing coral bleaching.

Celebrate accomplishments, yes. Pretend the job is done, no.

Posted by: j2hess | March 4, 2010 4:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

A senator bought and paid for by the coal industry. Children for generations will remember him as an eco-villan.

Posted by: Rmunoz1 | March 4, 2010 4:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment

What we should do is round up all the LIB waste of space and use them in forced labor camps. Say MINING. After all they have done very little for their country other than destroy it. Let's make honest men out of them.

Posted by: askgees | March 4, 2010 4:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Just a preview of what will happen in the next election when unlimited corporate money can be used to influence and buy politicians. At this rate, I am surprised that they aren't calling for the FDA to overturn any rulings against tobacco.
POSTED BY: PEARL77 | MARCH 4, 2010 4:00 PM
REPORT OFFENSIVE COMMENT
I guess being LIB is equal to being stup1d. The US Supreme Court ruling removed a 30 day hold on advertizing. LOL RIF (READING IS FUNDEMENTAL) You must be proud knowing that the average 4th grader is better educated then yourself. If I we’re you I wouldn’t complain my guess is working in a coal mine is your best shot.

Posted by: askgees | March 4, 2010 4:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Further proof that all politics are local.
POSTED BY: THEOBSERVER4 | MARCH 4, 2010 2:33 PM
REPORT OFFENSIVE COMMENT

Did you really post this????? LOL you’re one dumb SOB aren’t you. Let me explain it to you since you obviously missed elementary school. There is no such thing as a US Senator. They are State Senators and work for their respective states. Try educating yourself or you will lead a long miserable life.

Posted by: askgees | March 4, 2010 4:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Just a preview of what will happen in the next election when unlimited corporate money can be used to influence and buy politicians. At this rate, I am surprised that they aren't calling for the FDA to overturn any rulings against tobacco.

Posted by: Pearl77 | March 4, 2010 4:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment

We finally get bipartisan support for something, and all liberals can do is complain? I thought bipartisan was "good?"

Posted by: silencedogoodreturns | March 4, 2010 3:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Coal wh*re.
Posted by: uh_huhh | March 4, 2010 12:57 PM
********************************************

And there you have it.

Posted by: bigbrother1 | March 4, 2010 3:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gah, let's prevent ourselves from preventing ourselves from poisoning ourselves, brilliant! Tell you what, for every minute a senator spends breathing in only the fumes from a coal power plant that's a minute we can suspend the EPA's authority.

Posted by: paul5301 | March 4, 2010 3:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Rockefeller is a bozo and a carpet - bagging weasel . He loves everything about the EPA until it looks like West Virginia's about to get whacked . What a hypocrite ! Unfortunately ... this time I agree with him .

Posted by: lagnafrah | March 4, 2010 2:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Caldem,
You have been greatly misinformed. Air and water pollution in this country have been improving since the late 1950s. The health and welfare effects of air and water pollution have never been less important than they are now. In spite of our technology requiring far more energy and fuel than it did 100 years ago, we have developed means of dealing with emissions and have minimized health and welfare effects to the point where they are not discernable anymore. As recently as 50 years ago, household combustion of coal in poorly controlled individual units provided a large share of space heat in this country. Pollutant loads and ground level concentrations of a far greater variety of pollutants was enormously higher than they are today. Nobody is spewing anything into the air we breathe today.
Wastewater treatment is universal in this country. Nobody is spewing waste and excrement into the rivers, lakes of oceans anymore. The EPA’s NPDES and pretreatment programs have ensured removal of toxins and toxicants from wastewater long before its discharge into surface waters.
The situation that you describe exists now in underdeveloped countries just as it existed in this country before industrialization and industrial clean-up. The way to improve the purity of the air and water on this planet is to encourage economic development in the second and third world countries. Our standard of living and life expectancy are better and longer now than they have ever been in any country in all of history. The crime is not that we enjoy those things, we earned them. The crime is that we seem unable to enable similar development in poor countries.
returntocommonsense38
Pollutants are not causing any diseases.
Denswei
Carbon dioxide is not and never will cause the oceans to acidify. If we burned all of the coal, oil and natural gas on the planet, the oceans would not be acidic. The pH of the oceans has dropped about 0.2 units, as you said. However, that means the oceans are slightly less alkaline than they were. The pH of sea water apparently varies between 7.6 and 8.4, depending on location and season. There is no data that imply that the slight reduction in alkalinity of the ocean water has had or will ever have a deleterious effect on us or ocean dwelling critters.

Posted by: snorbertzangox | March 4, 2010 2:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment

HIT4CYCLE swung and missed on this one:

"The EPA already has too much power and too much control over our lives. Those unelected bureaucrats have a thirst for control that needs to be tamped down by a congress accountable to the voters. Their agenda is hostile to free markets, liberty and a decent standard of living. The feds are going to have to start shrinking their bloated budgets and the EPA should be a prime candidate."

What an ironic statement to be making in these days of the EPA's shrinking ability to keep polluters from pouring toxic waste into our water supply. If you only knew how ignorant your post really is. It's your own water that's degrading with every uninformed chant you utter.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/us/01water.html?em

Posted by: B2O2 | March 4, 2010 2:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Good grief what an irresponsible species this is. It increasingly looks like homo sapiens was just a fleeting experiment in evolution, and some other organism will instead emerge as the one fit to make it long-term on this planet.

Done in by our own short-sightedness. The neocortex wasn't quite enough to overcome our idiotic baser impulses.

It was fun while it lasted. Thanks GOP. Thanks NIMBY Democrats too.

Posted by: B2O2 | March 4, 2010 2:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The EPA already has too much power and too much control over our lives. Those unelected bureaucrats have a thirst for control that needs to be tamped down by a congress accountable to the voters. Their agenda is hostile to free markets, liberty and a decent standard of living. The feds are going to have to start shrinking their bloated budgets and the EPA should be a prime candidate.

Posted by: hit4cycle | March 4, 2010 2:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment

We need our industry back our steel mills that our government forced to go over seas. We need government out of our lives and bring back our factory's and steel mills and all the other jobs they keep giving to the rest of the world.

_____________________

It's wishful thinking that if the EPA disappeared right this second that these jobs would come back. All companies care about is the bottom line which would not only mean losing the EPA but lowering our wages to meet what they make in China, Thailand, etc. Are you ready to watch your standard of living plummet?

The other thing you need to think about is the rise in health care costs from the diseases that are caused by pollutants. Are you ready to pay even more for health care?

Posted by: returntocommonsense38 | March 4, 2010 2:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment

get rid of rockefeller or get hosed again west virginia. get rid of all democrats or you will have nothing to live on.

Posted by: 12thgenamerican | March 4, 2010 2:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment

CO2 is not a pollutant? Because it doesn't affect human health in normal concentrations?
What if a company was dumping a waste chemical into the ocean that was harmless to humans, but increasing the acidity of the ocean? Only an idiot would claim that it should not be regulated.
Well guess what: CO2 + H2O ---> Carbonic acid, and we have nearly doubled the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. In just 150 years, the ocean surface water has become measurably more acid (about a change from 8.18 pH down to 8.10--see "ocean acidification" on wikipedia)

Posted by: Denswei | March 4, 2010 2:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Further proof that all politics are local.

Posted by: theobserver4 | March 4, 2010 2:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment

DRDAVISDR: our government forced steel mills overseas? Just like they forced our textile mills overseas? NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO were all heavily lobbied for my the heads of these same industries, just so they could increase profits and shareholder value by moving operations overseas. They didn't move because of our environmental laws (yeah, shame on Americans for wanting clean air and water); they moved because labor overseas was cheap (yeah, shame on Americans for wanting a living wage) and transportation cost next to nothing. This was a MARKET induced phenomenon that was supported by Congress which, in some cases, altered tax code and subsidized the relocations to China.

Posted by: bikes-everywhere | March 4, 2010 2:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Republican Nixon created the EPA, Democrat Rockefeller wants to destroy it - the world is so mixed up next thing you know Sarah Palin will say she's read the cliff notes on her own book.

Posted by: GarrisonLiberty | March 4, 2010 2:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Jay rock has always been an embarrassment to his adoptive state of WV. He has bought every election he has run in.I can remember the first time I went to vote in WV and he was running for his first term as governor. I was
approached by a neighbor who was a local democrat big shot and he asked me if I wanted 5 bucks or a pint of whiskey to vote for him. True story

Posted by: Woodstocknative | March 4, 2010 2:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I would rather use OUR energy even if it is not as clean, then import energy from countries that are not our friends. Coal is way cleaner then it used to be and continues to get cleaner.

Posted by: ksilton | March 4, 2010 2:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment

On behalf of the children of the planet, I sure hope Jay Rockefeller dies a sudden, and swift, death.

(Natural, of course.)

Posted by: trenda | March 4, 2010 1:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Yes, let's keep pushing mountains into rivers and putting megatons of CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere. As long as the coal industry is making money, who cares about the future. Rock on, dude.

Posted by: vmax02rider | March 4, 2010 1:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Lastly, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant! Our trees need it to live and while they consume it, thanks to photosyntheses, we get oxygen in exchange. More important, Phytoplankton accounts for half of all photosynthetic activity on Earth.


Posted by: Conservator | March 4, 2010 11:02 AM
Report Offensive Comment

--------------

CO2 is great, huh? What a ridiculously irrelevant statement. Why don't you go suck on some pure CO2 for awhile. Maybe it will help your critical thinking skills...

Posted by: ghokee | March 4, 2010 1:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The EPA needs more power - not less. We live in a paradise, a Garden of Eden, but we're turning it into a garbage dump as fast as we can. We spew our waste and our excrement into the oceans and rivers, contaminating our food supply and our water supply. We can only live a few minutes without oxygen yet we allow global corporations to spew toxic gases into our air supply. And we're supposed to ignore this threat because it might endanger coal industry profits ?????? A million years from now, a new species will dig up our extinct bones and label us "hominid ignoramus" because we killed off our own species even though we knew how to prevent it.

Posted by: CALDEM | March 4, 2010 1:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Vote em out... vote em all out! Lawmakers need term limits, I'm sick of them focusing on re-election instead of the issues.

Posted by: rpetitti | March 4, 2010 1:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Coal wh*re.

Posted by: uh_huhh | March 4, 2010 12:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment

@Conservator: Right, because professional scientists label people "radical leftists" when they point out a fallacious argument and accuse them of "worshiping at the Altar of Global Warming." Nice. Because caring a bit about the sustainability of our environment is a "radical" view of "leftists." Sigh.

You didn't even bother to address the fact of the logical fallacy of your "CO2 is good!" line of reasoning, which I pointed out (just because something is good/necessary does not mean more of it is better).

For the record, sure, I've read the IPCC reports. And though both today and in 1850 the % of CO2 in the atmosphere was low as an overall portion of the atmosphere, we've seen a significant increase (>30%) in atmospheric CO2 over that time span. The fact that both numbers are still small in proportion to the entire atmosphere's composition does not invalidate the danger of the increase in CO2 levels--and a soi-disant scientist should know that.

Hearkening back to my simple metaphor that "just because some is good, doesn't mean more is better," let's look at oxygen. Oxygen is required for animal life, including human life. Just like CO2 is required for photosynthesis. At normal partial pressures, oxygen keeps us alive; at reduced partial pressures, we suffocate. But at elevated partial pressures, toxicity results (this is one of the dangers of diving, incidentally).

Likewise, consider my reference to selenium, which is an apt parallel seeing as how it makes up such a small portion of one's diet. It's a necessary micronutrient, yet exceeding just 400 micrograms/day can lead to toxicity and illness.

Do you start to see why claiming that unnaturally increasing atmospheric CO2 isn't likely to be some boon to mankind by turning the world green with plants?

Posted by: exerda | March 4, 2010 12:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment

So now Congress believes it knows more about our climate than atmospheric (and other) scientists and how to combat climatic changes.

Be afraid, be VERY afraid...

Posted by: Rich393 | March 4, 2010 12:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I wonder what Senator Rockefeller thinks West Virginia will produce when all the Appalachian Mountain ranges have been leveled and the potable water is contaminated by mountaintop coal removal?

But for Rockefeller it has always been to "go for the gold."


Posted by: helloisanyoneoutthere | March 4, 2010 12:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I love it. The good senator practically shed tears over health care and the meanies out there who did not care about the American people. But just watch him become a conservative when it comes to keeping votes in his own state. He's just another greedy politician who does not want to loose power and perks in Washington. He knows full well that the coal and utilities industry has had several decades to get their act together. He knows there is no such thing as clean coal.... no proven technology, no operational plants, no big time funding to get there. More time? Baloney! And just what will these companies do with another five years if they get it? It is simply a ploy to keep profits high and Wall Street happy. No, I am afraid the senator is just another cowardly politician who is incapable of taking difficult decisions.

Posted by: tarryh | March 4, 2010 12:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Why does the people of the United States keep electing these RICH ELITISTS that have sold us out so many times for GLOBAL CONTROL and they are continuing on there quest for a ONE WORLD ORDER. They (The Rockefeller Family) will be successful in time and the people will pay for not taking notice and stopping them. They have all the money and now they will control EVERYTHING and we the people will just sit and watch as the AMERICAN DREAM is SYSTEMATICALLY DESTROYED. Good luck with the EPA

Posted by: wmcrae4 | March 4, 2010 12:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment

To- flaxseedsrgood

Ah yes their connection to Hitler and the Nazis. Well the media doesn't report these things because media too is owned by these Nazi supporters at the very top. But if people bothered to maybe read a book now and then, they would realize what these fascist are up to.

Posted by: SeanA1 | March 4, 2010 12:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment

exerda wrote:
LOL, "Conservator." Nice talking-points memo from the desk of the fossil fuels lobby, there...

I am a scientist who unlike you doesn't worship at the fear-mongers "Altar of Global Warming" or support the radical views of leftists like yourself. BTW, can you tell me the percentage of CO2 contained in the Earth's atmosphere today or how it compares to 1850? Can you tell me where the majority of "Carbon" is located on the Earth? Here's an easy one, have you ever read just one of the IPCC's reports?

It appears you are the one who relies on talking points pal and BTW, I never worked for any energy company - I'm in health care research.

Posted by: Conservator | March 4, 2010 12:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Rockefeller has their hands in the Planned Parenthood (previously known as a eugenics organization praised by Hitler). Why isn't the media focusing from that angle?

Posted by: flaxseedsrgood | March 4, 2010 12:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment

In related news, Rockefeller will propose subsidies for manufacturers of perpetual motion machines! " Clean Coal " is the maximum oximoron, an in your face Hail Mary from the rapists of West Virginia, who obliterate the earth and then pretend that pumping CO2 back into the earth will make everything better.

Posted by: waters1 | March 4, 2010 11:37 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Wow, some people calling to do away with the EPA altogether? An agency which came about during a Republican (Nixon) presidency, no less?

Read a few histories of the working conditions of folks when there were no environmental regulations on their industries. You don't have to go back to the Industrial Revolution or the days of sweat shops found far to the west of southeast Asia. What good are jobs to people when they are laid low by the toxins in their workplace? And beyond the workplace: look at such wondrous examples as Love Canal, NY, or the good old days of using PCB to keep down the dust on country roads. These are not ancient history, and the facts are clear: if we're not protected by the government from environmental abuse, we'll all suffer the consequences.

History repeats itself, and it's amazing how quickly and eagerly some seem to want it to do just that.

Posted by: exerda | March 4, 2010 11:32 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Rockefeller caves to the coal lobby. Let the EPA do it's job. Oh, and by the way, it's time to get rid of the Congressional coal-powered power plant. Sens. Byrd and McConnell won't let it happen (against the wishes of the Congresional architect) because of their ties to the coal industry. Stop polluting my D.C. air.

Posted by: jckdoors | March 4, 2010 11:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment

All the Rockefellers are Nazi sympathizers and believe in the Nazi ideology.

Posted by: SeanA1 | March 4, 2010 11:28 AM
Report Offensive Comment

He's a Rockefeller, what do you expect, populism?? His family is part of the ruling elite. He knows where his bread is buttered. Such persons should not be in government, with such obvious conflicts of interest.

For the poster who values jobs over the environment, when the Earth is so poisoned we cannot live here, there will be no jobs for anyone. Talk about shortsighted!

Posted by: greeenmtns | March 4, 2010 11:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment

LOL, "Conservator." Nice talking-points memo from the desk of the fossil fuels lobby, there.

"Lastly, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant! Our trees need it to live and while they consume it, thanks to photosyntheses, we get oxygen in exchange. More important, Phytoplankton accounts for half of all photosynthetic activity on Earth."

You need water to live, too. Too much of it, and you drown. You need selenium as a nutrient; too much of it, you die. So many more examples: heck, even too much oxygen (or oxygen at too high of a partial pressure), and you die, your cellular machinery poisoned. Just because CO2 is needed for photosynthesis does not mean that adding a bunch more will be some grand fertilizer which makes the world greener and better.

Take a few science classes instead of believing everything the Western Fuels Association and their ilk spout.

Posted by: exerda | March 4, 2010 11:23 AM
Report Offensive Comment

It's amazing Rockefeller says "Congress, not the EPA, must be the ideal decision-maker on such a challenging issue." Great idea - leave the science the politicians. That should work out wonderfully.

Posted by: Ari_MR | March 4, 2010 11:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Carbon emissions threaten human health?

How?

Where is the proof?

It is easy to make wild claims - all Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035. If you examine all of these "threats to human health" you find that there exists no basis in fact.

The "bigger storms" claim is nonsense.

The "more diseases" claim is also simply nonsense.

The "rising sea levels" claim is nonsense. Consider this FACT: During the previous interglacial period sea levels were 25 feet higher than today. Are we to suppose that mankind caused sea levels to be 25 feet higher 100,000+ years ago? Or should we suppose that "this time things are different."

Carbon emissions control has no logical foundation. Unless you believe state control of everything is the ideal.

Posted by: RobertAJonesJr | March 4, 2010 11:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Funny how all the West Virginia liberals oppose the EPA when it is their ox that is gonna get gored.

I say put a carbon tax on coal sufficiently high to stop the use of coal in this country. If this means shutting down West Virginia, then so be it.

It's sorta like Obama HealthCare. The people want a clean environment regardless of the cost. And if we have to put a bunch of liberal hill billies in West Virginia out of work, so be it.

I love my federal government and my EPA.

Posted by: hartwr1 | March 4, 2010 11:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Ah, so taking action is a role reserved for Congress... which has demonstrated how ready and able it is to tackle the complex issues of energy policy... by punting, time and time again. Rockefeller is proving the adage that all politics are local yet again by caving to the myth of "clean coal" and the industry-driven "needs more study and consideration" procrastination that Congress is so good at.

Posted by: exerda | March 4, 2010 11:05 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Bravo Sen. Rockefeller and all the Democrats and Republicans mentioned in the article.

As I perused the comments, I amazed at the ignorant rants regarding coal, WVA and its clean water problems.

Perhaps these folks who believe we should give up the use of coal, which is the one energy source that the USA has more of than any other nation, can explain their rationale for producing bio fuels?

Bio fuels actually would produce more green house gases if produced at an equivalent rate/usage as coal. Also, it will pollute water supplies far greater than coal - NITROGEN levels destroy the farm belt, while food and energy prices increase significantly.

Lastly, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant! Our trees need it to live and while they consume it, thanks to photosyntheses, we get oxygen in exchange. More important, Phytoplankton accounts for half of all photosynthetic activity on Earth.

Thus phytoplankton are responsible for much of the oxygen present in the Earth's atmosphere – half of the total amount produced by all plant life. Their cumulative energy fixation in carbon compounds (primary production) is the basis for the vast majority of oceanic and also many freshwater food webs. As a side note, one of the more remarkable food chains in the ocean – remarkable because of the small number of links – is that of phytoplankton feeding krill (a type of shrimp) feeding baleen whales. And, phytoplankton serves as the base of the aquatic food web, providing an essential ecological function for all aquatic life.

Thus without phytoplankton, not only would most sea life become extinct, it would devastate humans as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytoplankton

Posted by: Conservator | March 4, 2010 11:02 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Sounds like Rockefeller is coming to his senses.Or just needs cover for some other generational fraud on the American people..

Posted by: jmounday | March 4, 2010 10:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment

How odd... the senior senator from a state built on strip mining money is against environmental regulation...hmmm. Nope. No influence there.

Posted by: roboturkey | March 4, 2010 10:49 AM
Report Offensive Comment

MissBarnette - I didn't see Rockefeller pushing Obama for an Appalachian Wind Authority under the ARRA.

Combine this with the article about Schumer blocking ARRA funds for wind farms and we have a completely dysfunctional Democratic Party.

I understand his action, but given his lack of action on moving WV to green energy all I can say is his behavior is unbecoming a Senator.

Posted by: anarcho-liberal-tarian | March 4, 2010 10:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Get rid of the EPA? I can't believe anyone could say that unless they're joking. They'd need to be either incredibly ignorant, or greedy as hell. Do they really want us to be like China, where there is no real environmental regulation and companies dump toxic waste in peoples' back yards in order to make money?

Posted by: jef2 | March 4, 2010 10:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hey all, we had a sustainable green energy economy before we found oil. I, for one, dont want to go back there: the horse for transportation, wood for heating, no electricity.
Murkowski is actually doing the right thing. CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a natural byproduct of life and combustion. If you want to reduce CO2, stop breathing...

Posted by: bruce18 | March 4, 2010 10:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I almost never agree with Senator Rockefeller's side on issues. He is much to liberal for me; but he has this one right. He knows that coal research is making phenominal strides in controlling harmful emmissions. Most perople, unfortunately, hear only what self-serving carbon zealots like Al Gore spout. Let's face it, it is certainly in both the coal industry's and the Nation's interest to solve this problem. We have enough coal under our soil to produce usable, cheap energy for thousands of years. Why not give the industry time to help our country. Why not 5 or 10 years to do it?

Posted by: jimblair1 | March 4, 2010 10:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Greenhouse heating is a theory in science. It is not a scientific fact. Facts become facts when there is replication and anyone with the same data can come to the same conclusion. The half baked data of the pseudo scientists is not replicable and therefore greenhouse is still a theory, not a scientific fact. Why did the last glaciar stay for 30,0000 years? Why did it melt after that time and why didn't it return after 10,000 years? Until you can prove theory is fact, there is not scientific fact of greenhouse. Prove me wrong!

Posted by: virgin12 | March 4, 2010 10:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Good for Senator John Rocefeller, if America could dissolve The EPA Agency and take them off of the Tax Rolls; a lot of money would be saved. Then the American farmer would be able to kill a rat on their own land and get water for their crops. Instead, the EPA are holding up water to save a(2)Two inch fish that could be saved another way. The most important result would be that America could be saved from Tyranny.

Posted by: Logic3 | March 4, 2010 10:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Okay, regardless of any other issues in this article, you have to admit that this particular statement is pretty telling of politics today:

"Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) has introduced a resolution of disapproval that would overturn the agency's scientific finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare."

So, apparently, scientific findings can be overturned by a simple vote of Congress. I wonder if it has to pass the 60 vote mark or if it can be just a simple majority. At least, the Democrat is being realistic about why he is doing it - to save jobs.

Posted by: rg_okc | March 4, 2010 10:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Dear Anarcho-Liberal:

As a liberal myself, I've had a tough time with this situation. However, I am a West Virginian first and foremost and I support John Rockefeller and the proposal of this bill.

Rockefeller is voting for what's best for his constituents. How many coal jobs are in West Virginia??? Many. How many green jobs are in West Virginia??? Few.

Rockefeller is not saying he's against regulation. What he is saying is that the coal and electric industry need time to meet the new standards set up by the EPA. Less than 2 years is not enough time to meet the protocol as well as secure enough capital to pay for these changes.

West Virginia electric bills will raise 12% this year to pay for a December ice storm. Imagine the hike needed to cover the changes at electric plants to purchase the new technology for for cap-and-trade. West Virginians DO NOT have the money to cover more increases. West Virginia provides much of the electricity for the entire east coast. If the coal industry and electric industry suffer...we ALL suffer.

Jay Rockefeller is doing what he's supposed to by proposing this bill...he is putting the people of West Virginia first!!!

Posted by: missbarnette | March 4, 2010 10:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Dear Anarcho-Liberal:

As a liberal myself, I've had a tough time with this situation. However, I am a West Virginian first and foremost and I support John Rockefeller and the proposal of this bill.

Rockefeller is voting for what's best for his constituents. How many coal jobs are in West Virginia??? Many. How many green jobs are in West Virginia??? Few.

Rockefeller is not saying he's against regulation. What he is saying is that the coal and electric industry need time to meet the new standards set up by the EPA. Less than 2 years is not enough time to meet the protocol as well as secure enough capital to pay for these changes.

West Virginia electric bills will raise 12% this year to pay for a December ice storm. Imagine the hike needed to cover the changes at electric plants to purchase the new technology for for cap-and-trade. West Virginians DO NOT have the money to cover more increases. West Virginia provides much of the electricity for the entire east coast. If the coal industry and electric industry suffer...we ALL suffer.

Jay Rockefeller is doing what he's supposed to by proposing this bill...he is putting the people of West Virginia first!!!

Posted by: missbarnette | March 4, 2010 10:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment

drdavisdr- Seriously? Given your level of ignorance you have to be a tea bagger.

The factories started leaving before any EPA environment rules. They left because Third World workers are willing to work an assembly line for pennies on a US worker's dollar. And the Third World govts are happy to take money from business to subvert worker organization, safety protections, etc...

Typical. I'm sure you actually believe that business management and wall street need to be left alone, and will magically stop racing around the world looking for cheap expendible labor.

Posted by: janowicki | March 4, 2010 10:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment

This is another example of exactly why Americans are furious with Washington. DO YOUR JOBS. Deal with the country's problems, rather than passing them on to the next generation, or the next Congress. We have an outdated energy system dependent on 19th century fuels and technology. The Chinese and everyone else will kick our butts if we don't start moving toward clean energy.

Posted by: gormbroc | March 4, 2010 10:23 AM
Report Offensive Comment

This is the correct response congress needs to write the laws. America is awash in administrative laws written by these agencies that stifle small and large business and economic growth. I'm sick of the greenies and their sky is falling mentality. We can can conserve and still expand and do it right instead of their ban it all mentality.

Posted by: FLvet | March 4, 2010 10:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The Congress needs to amend the powers given to the EPA under the Clean Air Act. If they do that it will discourage Presidents from trying to go around Congress.

Posted by: moebius22 | March 4, 2010 10:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I agree with other people on this blog: Shame on Rockefeller. He should be working to bring green jobs to WVA and diversify its economy from coal.

Posted by: org2 | March 4, 2010 10:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Why do people insist on believing that there has to be a choice between the environment and the economy? This trade-off exists only in our minds. Ignoring climate change is not the answer. The US did not become the nation it is today by fighting changing realities, but by leading the charge in building a new world. We need to embrace the emerging green economy so that we can forge a path into the future- or others will forge that path and reap the benefits.

Posted by: NatinFallsChurch | March 4, 2010 10:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment

you guys are so short sighted. $14/gal gas will save teh wurld!

Posted by: thecomedian | March 4, 2010 10:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Shame on Rockefeller for pandering to the coal companies. What he should be doing is requesting funds to retrain the coal miners in a more environmentally friendly business, like solar.
West Virginia has polluted water, hacked off mountains, and wholesale clearcuts. Does Rockefeller care about the way big business is ruining his state? No - he only cares whether big business will continue supporting his campaigns.

For shame!

Posted by: Whazzis | March 4, 2010 10:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment

DrAvisdr:

The EPA regulating power companies is not going to force jobs overseas. Power has to be local. I think this is a power grab. The EPA should be able to do it's job without Sen. Rockefeller lobbying for coal. The regulations aren't even in effect yet. If anything this will give jobs to GE and secure power sources for the future.

Posted by: randers001104 | March 4, 2010 10:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I'd say it's a better time to rein in Rockefeller - just another ignorant bozo who is in Congress and power soley because he inherited money from his robber-baron descendents.

Posted by: Byrd3 | March 4, 2010 10:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment

DRDAVISOR, you understand so little. We have no jobs because there is no penalty for exploiting cheap, overseas labor by American companies. CEOs are not loyal to America, they are loyal to $. When you're choking on crappy air and smog, and drinking polluted water don't cry about it since you advocate free rein for dirty industries. Try reading a book or two, written by scientists instead of politicians. you'll appear less of a fool.

Posted by: Watermann | March 4, 2010 10:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Jobs don't do you any good if we are all dead. Besides, data showed during the Reagan regime that cleaning up industrial emmissions created jobs and made industries more efficient, which means saves money.

Green is good. Black is dead.

Posted by: BigTrees | March 4, 2010 10:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Delay. Delay. Delay. That's all that congress seem able to achieve reliably. That doesn't stop spending needlessly, however.

W.Va is the dumbest state of the union. People in the coal regions are losing clean water to coal. Losing mountain tops to coal. Coal is king and more important than people's lives, health and safety.

Positive, forward, fearless - ACTION is what is needed.

People fear without reason and delay action without which there will be reason to fear for their children and grandchildren.

Rockefeller is just pandering to the W.Va coal industry. Pathetic.

Posted by: AlanBrowne | March 4, 2010 10:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment

It's time for a truly viable Green Party candidate to emerge. The time is right. We need to begin modest reductions in greenhouse gas emissions immediately to stimulate new technology and further clamp down on emissions as technology develops. We certainly don't need to create more jobs in digging coal out of the ground. Let's create much better jobs via the green energy industry.

Posted by: citizen4truth1 | March 4, 2010 10:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment

GREEN I am so sick and tired of hearing GRREN. We need jobs, we need to get rid of the EPA and don't need these high paid idiots recking our lives. We need our industry back our steel mills that our government forced to go over seas. We need government out of our lives and bring back our factory's and steel mills and all the other jobs they keep giving to the rest of the world. EPA has got to go.....

Posted by: drdavisdr | March 4, 2010 9:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Lisa Murkowski is a Republican, not a Democrat.

Posted by: Muckrakers | March 4, 2010 9:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment

And who says Dems are the green party.

Shame on Rockefeller.

Posted by: anarcho-liberal-tarian | March 4, 2010 9:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Post a Comment


 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company