Webb Comes Out Against EPA Regulation of Greenhouse Gases


As I reported earlier, it looks likely that Virginia Democrat Jim Webb will support Republican Lisa Murkowski’s efforts to bar the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating carbon dioxide emissions. Webb’s office won’t state whether he has or will formally sign on to Murkowski’s measure. But it just issued a statement to Mother Jones explaining that the senator opposes EPA regulation of greenhouse gases—not on environmental grounds, but due to his concerns about the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches:

Senator Webb has shared with Senator Murkowski his concerns about the EPA’s latest finding, concerning the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions, in the absence of clear congressional involvement and direction. Since his campaign for the U.S. Senate, one of Senator Webb’s principal themes has been to restore and maintain the proper balance of power between the executive branch and Congress. Senator Webb advanced similar arguments, concerning congressional engagement and approval, in August 2008 during the Bush Administration’s negotiation of the Iraq Security Agreements.

He has said on related issues for many years that the regulatory power of the executive branch is derived specifically from the legislative branch. It should be applied narrowly and in strict conformity with the Constitution and clear legislation enacted by the Congress. An executive branch decision to broadly interpret a legislative statute—especially one involving sweeping implications for our country—without such direction from Congress is inappropriate.

By citing the Iraq Security Agreements, Webb is referring to the attempt by the Bush administration in 2008 to unilaterally forge a long-term security arrangement with the government of Iraq. This comparison—and Webb’s contention that the administration would be abusing executive authority by using the EPA to restrict emissions—is an inaccurate one: The Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that the EPA has been granted the authority by Congress, via the Clean Air Act, to regulate carbon dioxide.

 

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate