A Little History
In summer 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Democrats in 2010 tried to pass legislation that would have capped greenhouse gas emissions, but the bills died as a result of Republican filibusters. So President Obama followed up on the Supreme Court ruling and authorized the EPA to use its regulatory authority to control greenhouse gas emissions, starting in January 2011.
On Tuesday, March 15, 2011, members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee voted 34-19 on a bill to permanently block the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Every Republican on the committee plus three Democrats – Reps. Mike Ross (Ark.), Jim Matheson (Utah) and John Barrow (Ga.) – supported the bill. The full House of Representatives is expected the vote on the bill before the Easter recess. And the Senate is considering parallel legislation now, as well.The House bill, by the way, is titled “H.R. 910: The Energy Tax Prevention Act.” Proponents are framing the bill as a “tax” that would “prevent” the economy from recovering.
Not so coincidentally, all of the representatives who voted for the bill have received thousands of dollars in donations from the billionaire Koch (pronounced “coke”) brothers, who own the largest privately owned company in the United States. According to www.sourcewatch.org, Koch Industries’ operations “include refining, chemicals, process and pollution control equipment, technologies, fibers and polymers, commodity and financial trading and consumer products. The company operates crude gathering systems and pipelines across North America. One subsidiary processes 800,000 barrels of crude oil daily in its three refineries.”
Follow the Money
Why do I single out the Kochs? Because the climate-change-denial campaign has a lot to do with “following the money.” Who benefits from legislation that would allow unregulated emissions of greenhouse gases, which scientists have proved affects global warming? Is it the people who suffer from asthma caused by air pollution, or is it the residents of “cancer alley” in Louisiana who suffer higher than “normal” levels of cancer? No, it’s the oil, gas and coal industries – and the people who support them – that believe they have much to lose in the short term from stricter regulations of air pollution. In the long term, however, it’s in the industries’ best interests to retrofit their businesses and invest big time in clean energies necessary for the future of human life as we have known it.
For more information about the Kochs, check Jane Mayer’s piece in The New Yorker magazine: “Covert Operations: The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama.” .
For the Koch Industries side of the story, check here.
Impact of H.R. 910
Back to my story. According to Ashley Braun’s post at DeSmogblog.com, H.R. 910, if passed, would be:
· “Prohibiting the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions (carbon dioxide and six others) in connection with climate change.
· “Repealing previous EPA actions and rules on climate, overturning the EPA's science-based endangerment finding stating that greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, threaten public health and therefore are ‘air pollutants’ which must be regulated.
· “Prohibiting Clean Air Act standards for improving vehicle fuel efficiency after 2016.
· “Preventing the EPA from allowing ambitious states, such as California, to set tougher vehicle emissions standards for greenhouse gases.”
Framing the Issue
On the FOXNews.com website, conservative pundit Phil Kerpen opines that senators who vote against a Senate version of the House bill would have to explain to their constituents “why they want to outsource our energy and economic future to unelected bureaucrats in the EPA – especially at a time when the economy remains weak and EPA regulations threaten to destroy millions of more American jobs. If the Senate refuses to stop the EPA, the biggest winners will be our global competitors like China and India.”
Democrats, on the other hand, are framing the bills as a threat to human health and welfare and as an affront to science.
House Democrats offered three amendments to H.R. 910 that, as Braun wrote, were “designed to get Republicans on the record on climate science.” The amendments called on Congress to agree that:
1. Climate change is occurring – amendment offered by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.)
2. Climate change is caused largely by humans – amendment offered by Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.)
3. Climate change endangers human health and welfare – amendment offered by Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.)
In contrast to FOXNews.com, Lucy Madison wrote on the CBSNews.com website that “The global scientific community is largely unified in the belief that the climate is warming as a result of human actions, among them the release of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.” Madison quoted Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) as saying that “the Republicans’ rejection of Waxman’s amendment showed ‘what it means to be on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of science.’”
While some Republican legislators are still publicly arguing that “the science is not settled” and that the climate crisis is not real, others are taking the more cautious approach by arguing that the issue isn’t about science; it’s about whether the EPA should have the authority to do what Congress should be doing.
House Republicans and Democrats finally agreed upon a weaker “sense of Congress” amendment proposed by Rep. Jim Matheson (D-Utah) that says there is “scientific concern over warming of the climate system.” Concern – but not proof. Waxman, understandably, is upset with this “better lame than nothing” amendment.
John M. Broder reported in the New York Times that Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the Republican Minority Leader, has attached an amendment to a small-business bill currently being considered in the Senate that has almost identical wording to that in H.R. 910. In his article, Broder quoted portions of a statement McConnell released to the press: “[Democrats] are attempting to do through regulation what they couldn’t do through legislation – regardless of whether the American people want it or not. … This is an insult to the millions of Americans who are already struggling to make ends meet or find a job.”
Broder added that “A vote on the McConnell amendment will be a test of anti-E.P.A. sentiment in the Senate, where a bill similar to the House measure has the support of most Republicans and one Democrat, Joe Manchin III, of West Virginia.” The major industry in West Virginia, by the way, is coal mining.
How Will the Chapter End?
So as historians write the chapter about what our politicians did in spring 2011 regarding the EPA, what will they say “we,” the people, did? Did we sit back and let history unfold? Or did we contact our legislators, demanding that they vote to support the EPA, improve vehicle fuel efficiency and allow states to pass their own stronger environmental laws?
What will history say YOU did?
If you want to send an e-mail to Florida’s two U.S. senators and the U.S. representative from our district, complete the contact forms available at these sites:
Rep. Steve Sutherland II (R-Fla.)
You simply fill in the forms, include your message, and hit "send." You can send three messages in less than 10 minutes.
So the end of the story is up to you. You can either be the difference, or you can be indifferent. The choice is yours.
