Sen. Murkowski Puts Oil Interests Before Public Health, Economic Independence
 Printer-friendly
|
 Email article |
Related subjects: Carbon Emissions, Climate Change, Economic Recovery, Energy Supply, Environment & Ecology, J.E. Robertson, Legislation, Renewable Resources, U.S. Economy, U.S. Law, U.S. news, U.S. Politics Comments (1)
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) is today trying to push through the United States Senate an amendment to proposed legislation which would limit the power of the EPA to regulate carbon emissions. Murkowski claims the constraint on EPA authority is necessary to protect future economic growth and job creation, though it is in fact an effort to deliver huge amounts of public funding to the oil industry and an attempt to establish federal government policy ignoring the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that the EPA has a legal obligation to regulate carbon emissions, under the authority granted to it by the Clean Air Act. This publication reported in April 2007 that:
In a lawsuit brought by 12 states, several cities and a dozen pro-environment organizations against the federal government, the US Supreme Court has handed down a narrow 5 to 4 ruling reversing Bush administration policy that avoids regulating carbon dioxide emissions. The Court says the Clean Air Act specifically authorizes the EPA to enforce such regulation in order to protect the public and effect clean air standards.
After two years of inaction by the Bush-era EPA, and a long period of study of the problem, the EPA officially ruled in December 2009 that carbon emissions pose a serious danger to public health and should be regulated under the Clean Air Act. Murkowski’s amendment is designed to stop the EPA from instituting that program of regulation, as ordered by the US Supreme Court.
There is substantial debate about the political motivations for the senators who have signed on, including Arkansas Democrat Blanche Lincoln, who narrowly survived a two-round primary challenge in her state. It is an election year, and the Republican party decided when Pres. Obama was elected that at least for the first two years until the midterm elections of 2010, they would oppose every policy of his administration, except where he agreed with their policies on the Iraq or Afghanistan wars or counterterrorism.
It does seem clear, however, that climate-change skepticism is not a viable explanation for the momentum Murkowski has gathered. It is more apparent, however, that there is a direct connection between support for the Murkowski amendment and ties to the oil coal industries. Senators who have promoted oil interests, offshore drilling or the building of new coal-fired electric plants, seem to receive more money from oil interests and to be translating that relationship into support for the Murkowski amendment.
Clearly, there is a Republican party strategy involved in the energy behind the amendment, a deliberate attempt to sabotage the effectiveness of any new legislation on energy or climate policy, to dampen the impact of Pres. Obama’s reform agenda. But the same question comes to that point: why? Would it be in the electoral interests of Republican politicians to support legislation that would be harmful to the economic interests of the people of the United States over the long term? Clearly not.
And opposing immediate action to reduce carbon emissions will be damaging to the long-term economic interests of the United States, if only because it will make the country more dependent on foreign oil and susceptible to the easily manipulated and also highly volatile pricing of oil. We know that the costs of using oil and coal for fuel are far higher than what consumers pay, and businesses engaged in those practices are highly profitable. This means the government, ultimately, or the consumer through other expenditures, is picking up the tab.
To extend those economic inefficiencies and to deepen American dependence on foreign oil, in the midst of an economic crisis, when action is urgently needed to lessen the likelihood of catastrophic climate destabilization, is bad policy. It is thought to be good politics only because Republican party strategists and their friends in the oil and coal industries believe strongly that most people do not know enough to make an informed judgment on the issue.
| Printer-friendly
|
Email article |
CafeSentido Partner Sites:
Sen. Murkowski’s amendment forbidding the EPA to regulate carbon emissions was defeated today by a margin of 47 in favor / 53 against, with six Democratic senators joining the Republican minority.