House Passes Anti-EPA Legislation

Republicans push through a bill that bans EPA regulations on greenhouse gases

April 7, 2011 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (6)

House Republicans and 19 Democrats delivered a major hit to the Environmental Protection Agency this afternoon, passing legislation that bans the federal agency's regulations on greenhouse gases. The bill now heads to the Senate, where similar anti-EPA measures were rejected just yesterday.

The Energy Tax Prevention Act, sponsored by House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton from Michigan, was written in response to the EPA's proposed permitting regulations on high-producing stationary sources of greenhouse gases, such as oil refineries and large cement plants. The agency authorized the regulations under the provisions of the Clean Air Act, using its own endangerment findings to justify their actions. The EPA's study says that at high levels, greenhouse gases are indeed harmful to the health and wellbeing of American citizens. Yet, Republicans question the legitimacy of these claims.

The debate in recent weeks has revolved around climate change and whether or not greenhouse gases emitted from these sources do in fact contribute to changes in Earth's atmosphere. In addition to concerns over climate change, Democrats have also argued that greenhouse gases can contribute to cases of asthma among the country's population, especially children.

Republicans have voiced concern over the level of regulatory power granted to the EPA, calling the agency's new rules on carbon dioxide a "back-door approach" to last Congress' failed cap-and-trade legislation. Supporters of the bill also worry that the EPA's regulations would push manufacturing to other countries, hurting the American economy. Upton wrote yesterday, "If manufacturers cannot compete under harsh U.S. rules, they will have no choice but to send their jobs overseas to nations that may not even provide the most basic environmental protections. Jobs would go overseas, but emissions would not be reduced–all economic pain for no environmental gain."

Yesterday in the Senate, a series of votes on EPA-related amendments indicated how Upton's bill could fare in the upper chamber. Though a number of Democrats voted for one or more of the amendments to limit the EPA's power, each amendment was rejected.

President Obama has said that he would veto the bill if it reached his desk, so for the bill to pass, Senate Republicans need to get at least 60 votes in favor. While the prospects for that seem low, Upton remained hopeful that the bill can gain enough bipartisan momentum in the Senate. In a statement released yesterday, he said, "From the outset, it has been my goal to advance a sensible, bipartisan plan through both the House and Senate so we can stop the EPA and put Congress back in charge of our energy future. Today's Senate vote proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the bipartisan consensus is to stop the EPA's regulatory march."

Tags:
Fred Upton,
Republican Party,
energy policy and climate change,
Barack Obama

Reader Comments Read all comments (6)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

"all economic pain for no environmental gain" It's hard to believe but it appears Mr Upton has a dose of common sense about how the world goes round. This is the kind of politician we need running this country. Simple common sensibility applied to anything makes sense.

Mike of OR 8:52PM April 12, 2011

Of course "no rules" dictatorships can produce cheaper, with millions slaves children, with no pollution rules, with prisoners killing for taking spare parts for humans, with undervalued moneys, with plutocracy, with gold plated tungsten ingots and super-dollars and super-Euros and super-yens in the central banks (never exported, only showed), with no trillions $ loosed for CERN and FERMILAB since 1956, with no trillions $ loosed for wars against Milosevic never bombed, Saddam Hussein never bombed, Osama Bin Laden never bombed, Gaddafi never bombed, with no trillions $ secretly offered to Israel, with no trillions $ offered to the banks, and so on...

But we should be wise to only sell, never buy, to any dictatorships...

If not, the dictatorship model will replace the democratic model, and worldwide!

Jean-Francois Morf, Charrat, Switzerland 9:13AM April 11, 2011

The problem with the consensus view is and will remain "attribution." CO2 is not hazardous to human health. United States Occupational, Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) says the safe limit for extended human exposure to CO2 is 5,000 ppm -- we’re orders of magnitude away from that. To say that the Supreme Court punted in its decision is a gross disservice to the American game of football. The United Nations opened the gates to push a liberal minded global regulation of the environment at the 1993 Rio - United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) declarations. The framework basically says that a) as manmade greenhouse gases (GHGs) cause warming is a given, b) the objective of the consensus work is to stabilize and reduce the concentration of GHGs at a level that would avoid manmade interference or disruption of the earth's environment, and c) the Parties should endeavor to protect the environment for the common good of mankind taking Precautionary measures to prevent or minimize "manmade" causes of climate change and mitigate the effects on the earth's environment and d) lack of scientific certainty should not be a reason for postponing such measures. GHGs are acknowledged by IPCC lead authors to cause around 1/3 of direct forcing of global warming. They also say (Jones, Trenberth, ... others) that the consensus understanding of natural forcings and feedback mechanisms (that account for the majority or 2/3 of the forcing) are not well understood. The models have been misused to rouse alarm even though the same lead authors - speaking on behalf of the consensus - say that their models are not useful and cannot inform on multidecadal forecasts and cannot be used to draw conclusions on regional or local climate change, which is the only thing that really matters. The models are theoretical top down similar to economists' macroeconomic models; the climate models are not models but scenario tools that do not describe the interactions among the known parameters. Future work must focus on attribution, while correctly communicating honestly on the unknowns and uncertainties. Models can aid understanding but we all ned to understand that the climate models are structural top down models that do not include all of the important parameters but are conditioned on greenhouse gases as the UNFCCC instructed. Objective science is falsifiable meaning that propositions or hypotheses are testable. Climate science attribution presently is not a theory it is a proposition, ie., hypothesis and unprovable therefore is not objective science, but subjective science a la Thomas Kuhn/Michael Polanyi who proposed that a scientists believes are considered science since these propel acceptance of scientifiic concepts by others. Just like CNN or Fox News push their viewpoints onto the general population although both claim to be "fair and balanced." Isn't "our side" always "fair and balanced" ??

Danley Wolfe of OH 12:09AM April 09, 2011

Photo Galleries

History of U.S. Bombings, Failed Attempts

A look at some of the worst bombings in the U.S. and infamous failed attempts.

advertisement

Latest Videos