Vote on Murkowski Measure Could Cause Problems for President

The President may be put into the sticky situation of having to veto a measure passed by a congress controlled by his party.

Congressional leaders are scrambling to prevent Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s Resolution of Disapproval of EPA carbon regulations from passing the Senate today. Having gained the support of Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a coal state Senator, the measure has a good chance at passing. Majority Leader Harry Reid granted a vote on the Murkowski legislation because it was thought to have little chance of passing in the Senate.

While the resolution would face an uphill battle in the House, its potential passage would force a presidential veto on legislation passed by a congress controlled by his own party. It would be an embarrassing moment for the administration whose priority it was to regulate carbon dioxide emissions as a way to stave off global warming.

Colorado Farm Bureau, AFBF and many other farm groups have supported the Murkowski resolution which would prevent the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide emissions from both mobile and stationary sources under the Clean Air Act. CFB has sent letters to Sens. Udall and Bennett urging their support of the bill.

Permitting costs and fees associated with the regulation of carbon dioxide by the EPA would devastate agriculture and allied industries as well as drive up energy costs on every family in America.


One response to this post.

  1. Posted by Ted Trobaugh on June 10, 2010 at 2:00 pm

    If I own a restaurant, I need to pay to have my waste disposed of properly. I can’t just toss it out my back door, because other people are affected. If I own a nuclear power plant, I need to pay to dispose of my waste properly. I can’t just leave it in a pit, because other people are affected. But if I own a coal-fired power plant, then I can just toss my waste up a smokestack, no matter how many other people are affected.

    The absence of a cap-and-trade system as we have now amounts to a subsidy for all carbon-fueled power sources — they don’t have to pay for proper waste disposal. They CAN just throw their waste in to the wind.

    Would a cap-and-trade system raise drive up costs? Sure. But making restaurant and grocery store owners dispose of their waste drives up the cost of a meal. Has anyone suggested that they be relieved of that cost?

    The fear of short-term costs are over-blown, but worst, they are short-sighted. The long-term costs of the global climate crisis will be far greater than any short-term cost of carbon regulation. If you have a small leak in a roof, do you fix the leak or do you save the money so you can spend a lot more later to replace the roof?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: