Greenhouse Gases, Health, the EPA and Money

Dear Friends,

The Obama Administration EPA, unlike the Bush Administration EPA, is determined to take action to limit the harmful impact of greenhouse gases.  A good summary article entitled, "EPA Prepares to Take the Lead on Regulating CO2" by Bryan Walsh at Time.com (here).  Mr. Walsh gives the background:

In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases like CO₂ could be considered pollutants and gave the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the power to regulate them under the Clean Air Act. Although that authority went unused in the waning days of former President George W. Bush's Administration, the Obama EPA has spent much of the past year preparing the groundwork for regulation. In the absence of a climate bill, the EPA has the power — and is legally mandated by the Supreme Court — to step in and address carbon emissions.

The Obama Administration is doing the right thing.  Greenhouse gases are harmful to the environment and the health of the planet and all its inhabitants.  But in Washington, the health of the planet and its people take a backseat to money and resistance to change.  As Mr. Walsh's article continues:

Problem solved, right? The trouble is that as controversial as cap-and-trade legislation has become, EPA regulation is an even bigger political minefield. Republicans are universally against it, claiming that clumsy top-down CO₂ regulation will kill American jobs by strangling power plants and other industry. Senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican from Alaska, introduced a bill late last year that would explicitly prevent the EPA from regulating carbon, and she already has 40 co-sponsors. Many Democrats also have their doubts — eight Democratic Senators from coal-heavy states sent a letter on Sunday, Feb. 21, to EPA administrator Lisa Jackson listing "serious economic and energy security concerns" with greenhouse-gas regulation.

For the record, the letter was drafted by Senator Rockefeller (West Virginia) and co-signed by Senator Begich (Alaska), Senator Byrd (West Virginia), Senator Brown (Ohio), Senator Casey (Pennsylvania), Senator McCaskill (Missouri), Senator Levin (Michigan) and Senator Baucus (Montana).  If one of those Senators is from your state, you might want to contact them to tell them that the health of the planet and the beings that live on it are more important than their campaign contributors.

 

The Obama Administration is standing its ground.  The article continues:

But the EPA's Jackson, at least, seems ready to fight. At the Senate hearing Tuesday morning, she tangled with Republican climate skeptics and emphasized that the Supreme Court required her agency to act. "The science behind climate change is settled, and human activity is responsible for global warming," she said. "That conclusion is not a partisan one." That's true, but just about everything else in Washington still is.

Bravo to Ms. Jackson.  She is willing to speak the truth to the special interest power groups and their purchased legislators.  But now more Democrats are selling out to their campaign contributors.  Representative Colin Peterson from my home state (not my district) of Minnesota, the Chair of the Agriculture Committee, and Representative Ike Skelton of Missouri, the Chair of the Armed Services Committee, have joined as co-sponsors of a Republican sponsored House Bill to stop the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases.  

When will our elected representatives understand that their duty is to the American people and not to their campaign contributors?

We can only hope that the Democrats in the Senate will remember the filibuster and use it to be sure this anti-science, anti-health, anti-life, pro-money bill does not pass.

Thanks for reading and please comment,

The Unabashed Liberal