Alaska Dispatch

Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski has injected her own form of pressure into the latest political wrangling over the nation's climate change policy. Calling regulation by the Environmental Protection Agency of greenhouses gases under the Clean Air Act the absolute "worst" option, on Monday Murkowski put Congress and the White House on notice that she intends to seek a congressional veto of the EPA's "steady march" toward a "command and control" approach.

The veto push comes by way of a "resolution of disapproval," which Murkowski plans to submit should the EPA move forward with its plans to seek regulatory jurisdiction.

On Dec. 7, the EPA determined that carbon dioxide is one of six greenhouse gases that "threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations." The finding places the agency one step closer to regulation of vehicle emissions, and also, Murkowski warns, to regulation of any large-quantity emitters of CO2 and other atmospheric pollutants, driving business and government dangerously toward a bureaucratic nightmare and the economy into financial calamity.

Where global warming and ocean acidification are considered the "twin evils" of climate change, Murkowski spoke at length about the bureaucratic and economic evils a rushed and ill-conceived policy approach to reducing emissions will bear as businesses, schools, hospitals, farms and landfills are forced to retrofit facilities to reduce their carbon footprint, and of the administrative gridlock that will ensue as EPA permitting processes become overwhelmed, thwarting construction while businesses wait for regulatory approval.

Jobs will be lost, business may close their doors, domestic energy production will decline, dependence on foreign energy suppliers will increase and housing will become more expensive, Murkowski said.

While Murkowski acknowledged that Congress is nowhere close to a solution of its own, she said it was inappropriate to "hold a gun to its head" by threatening the inevitability of EPA's looming oversight if congress doesn't swiftly come up with its own plan.

"It's difficult to grasp how or why Congress would feel compelled to enact economically damaging legislation in order to stave off economically damaging regulation. We're being presented with a false choice that should be rejected outright," Murkowski urged during her statement on the Senate floor.

Late Monday, at least one environmental group was critical of the senator's strategy.

“It is a sad day when a United States senator attempts to stop a federal agency from enforcing one of our nation’s most successful and cost-effective laws —  the Clean Air Act," said Kiran Suckling, the executive director for the Center for Biological Diversity, in a written response to Murkwoski's remarks.

"We applaud the EPA for moving forward to implement the Clean Air Act to avert catastrophic runaway global warming and protect the air our children breathe. Unlike the current anemic Senate bills, the Clean Air Act is the only existing tool that can ensure that the United States develops a truly science-based greenhouse-pollution cap,” Suckling said.

But, like Murkowski, industry, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, has also bristled at and opposed the prospect of EPA oversight. Global energy giant BP, one of the three main oil producers in Alaska and a company that has hopes of developing a natural gas pipeline here, won't comment on the recent EPA finding, although it, too, appears to favor shaping reduced national emissions through legislative, instead of agency, channels.

"BP supports the adoption of a transparent, economy-wide carbon management policy that relies on market mechanisms and treats all types of energy in a fair and equitable manner. We are working with policy makers to provide input on the current bill," BP spokesperson Steve Rinehart said.

In speeches and testimony before Congress, company executives for BP have made it clear they want a uniform "carbon price" for all energy producers, one that aids natural gas in quickly becoming a larger part of the energy market over coal, which is more carbon-intensive to produce. And BP executives do not believe the bill currently before Congress adequately sets a level playing field among all types of energy sources in terms of moving toward a "low-carbon future."

The State of Alaska is also closely watching the cap-and-trade climate legislation, concerned that Alaska's oil industry may suffer and sink hopes of a natural gas pipeline if carbon restrictions become too cost prohibitive, according to Joe Balash, a special assistant to Gov. Sean Parnell.

Murkowski's criticism of the EPA decision comes as President Barack Obama prepares to head to Copenhagen for the United Nations Climate Change Conference, at which the United States is under world pressure to commit to an aggressive policy for reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Two members of Murkowski's staff will also attend.

Sen. Mark Begich, a Democrat, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Contact Jill Burke at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

Name

Email

Title

Comment

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

Post