This report follows action on the hill yesterday where Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski grilled EPA head Lisa Jackson about her stance on whether climate-change regulations should come from Congress or the EPA. Jackson has consistently stated that she believes the two are not mutually exclusive and legislation and EPA rules can work together. This appears to be an unacceptable answer for Murkowski. "I don't know that I'm any more clear based on your statement this morning as to whether or not you think it should be the Congress and those of us elected by our constituents and accountable to them to enact and advance climate policy," she said, according an article on the The New York Times web site.
This remark seems disingenuous. Murkowski has tried to overturn the EPA's finding that greenhouse gas emissions pose a danger to human health. If emissions regulations are left for Congress, I fear Republicans will stall throughout this session in hope of gaining control of Congress after the next election. If that happens, it could be a return to Bush-era environmental policies, at least as passed by the Legislature. Perhaps if Congress could move with a bit more speed, the EPA regulations would not seem so threatening to Murkowski. Rockefeller's bill is also misguided. It should not take two years for Congress to get its act together on such a long-standing issue.
Great post about something that for some reason continues to keep reappearing. I think Murkowski, along with Rockefeller are keeping in mind their constituents which are employed in the oil and coal industries. They are attempting to protect their constituents. Unfortunately, with cost-cutting efforts and the great desperation to create jobs along with stimulating the economy, once again we are witnessing here long-term blindness. We hear this argument all the time about halting or preventing legislation to be enacted because of the costs associated with them. This is quite infuriating if I may say. For instance, CAFE standards have long been drawn out, and even then been credited with automobile companies losing millions with implementation costs. Excuses may no longer have a place in our government or private industry.
ReplyDeleteLet’s look at someone's house for instance, now every 10 or 15 years a new roof is needed. This does not mean that each shingle is completely useless and worn, but merely the cost and energy to replace the entire thing is cheaper and efficient over time than replacing each portion separately. This is how I somewhat see emissions standards. More or less, it allows the championed polluters to buy time and continue to make profit without changing anything.
Furthermore, somewhere between the last three decades American companies have lost the idea to innovate and enhance their business to compete. The land of capitalism is losing the globalization war to other parts of the globe mainly because we are stagnant. Partly because of regulations, partly due to control by several major companies, and most importantly because of consumer apathy. We are not pushing private industry or encouraging them to improve themselves. In the documentary, "Who Killed the Electric Car" this is becomes apparent, we as consumers are just as much to blame as the politicians and big business.
You are so right. Politics is playing too big of a role in this debate, I think. I suppose that sounds naive, but when a few industries' lobbies can hold up needed legislation, I think everyone lose. I think these types of regulations benefit every American in the long-run and could also force companies to innovate.
ReplyDeleteI personally believe the American consumer is going to become a bit more savvy. We are already more engaged than we were when GM built the electric car. If the recession has done anything, it has changed how we consume. There is also an interesting trend with real estate -- people actually want smaller homes. It is too early to tell if this is a long-term trend, but I do think it suggests that there is a significant shift in our over-consuming habits.
I am really sad you did not participate in my poll on the issue!
Although Lisa Murkowski could very well be playing a role in the Republicans strategy of "stalling" she may also just be answering to her constituents. Since, she is from Alaska her environmental policy views are probably much different from other states (even other Republican states). If you analyze her views on environmental policy she appears to be in favor of economic development over saving the earth, but Alaska as a whole tends to embrace these ideas as well. Her opinions may be a matter of answering to her constituents and attempting to save her own seat in congress and not just attempting to stall the legislation. Either way, I agree, politics is playing a huge role in the development of legislation and it doesn't seem like they ever accomplish anything. :(
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lisa Jackson, environmental policymaking is not exclusive to either Congress or the EPA. They should be able to work together to develop sound environmental policy. I heard about Senator Rockefeller's bill but I did not know about Murkowski's remarks. Thanks for posting.
ReplyDelete