Coal State Dems Question EPA Climate Regs

Get your news from a source that’s not owned and controlled by oligarchs. Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily.


The revolt against the Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions intensified on Friday, as eight coal-state Democratic senators sent a letter to administrator Lisa Jackson detailing “serious economic and energy security concerns” with potential regulations.

“Ill-timed or imprudent regulation” of emissions “may squander critical opportunities for our nation, impeding the investment necessary to create jobs and position our nation to develop its own clean energy,” wrote the group, which was led by Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.) and joined by Max Baucus (Mont.), Mark Begich (Alaska), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Robert Byrd (W.Va.), Robert Casey (Penn.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.) and Carl Levin (Mich.). 

The senators stopped short of endorsing a plan offered by Republican Lisa Murkowski and backed by several Democrats that would block the EPA’s regulation of carbon dioxide. But they outlined a series of questions making clear that when it comes to Murkowski’s measure, their votes are still in play. Among their concerns were whether Congress would be able to review the EPA’s carbon regulations and how the agency would assess the “direct and indirect cost implications” of its new rules. The group also asked what impact Murkowski’s measure would have on the EPA’s ability to regulate and on the agency’s broader work monitoring the impacts of climate change.

Murkowski’s measure already has 40 cosponsors, including Democrats Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), Ben Nelson (Neb.) and Mary Landrieu (La.). Jim Webb (Va.) has also expressed support for the measure, which requires only 51 votes to pass. Murkowski’s bill is expected to go to a vote next month. If it passes, both the House and President Barack Obama would likely reject it. But it would deal yet another political blow to Senate Democrats’ wider climate agenda.

 

From the desk of Mother Jones CEO, Monika Bauerlein...

Newsrooms can be funded in many ways. One of the most controversial (and volatile) ways is by a for-profit corporation or a billionaire owner. We see it across the headlines on a weekly basis: the claw backs in public media, the gutting of The Washington Post, the bending over backwards to appeal to Trump and his allies.

But not here.

When Mother Jones first started publishing 50 years ago, our founders made a critical decision: to be a reader-supported nonprofit. They knew that no corporate owner would be interested in a muckraking newsroom; they also knew that no muckraking newsroom would be interested in following the agenda of a corporate owner.

And so, we’ve been reader-funded for half a century. We rely on contributions from our readers—readers like you—whether it’s $50, or $15 a month, or whatever fits your budget. People give what they can, and every donation makes a difference for our newsroom, which has grown tremendously—in size and reach and renown—since its inception in 1976.

You may be wondering: What does it take to publish an investigation? And what does my donation actually fund? The answers are one and the same: It takes people, resources, and time. And that’s what your donation funds directly.

Every donation Mother Jones receives from readers fortifies our newsroom, whether we’re covering underreported scandals out of Washington, DC, or the most important news of the day. And right now, each donation will be doubled because of our $50,000 match. So when you make a donation—$5, $50, any amount—it’ll go twice as far.

Your support keeps us going. If you’re able, donate today.

Thanks for reading.

—Monika

From the desk of Mother Jones CEO, Monika Bauerlein...

Newsrooms can be funded in many ways. One of the most controversial (and volatile) ways is by a for-profit corporation or a billionaire owner. We see it across the headlines on a weekly basis: the claw backs in public media, the gutting of The Washington Post, the bending over backwards to appeal to Trump and his allies.

But not here.

When Mother Jones first started publishing 50 years ago, our founders made a critical decision: to be a reader-supported nonprofit. They knew that no corporate owner would be interested in a muckraking newsroom; they also knew that no muckraking newsroom would be interested in following the agenda of a corporate owner.

And so, we’ve been reader-funded for half a century. We rely on contributions from our readers—readers like you—whether it’s $50, or $15 a month, or whatever fits your budget. People give what they can, and every donation makes a difference for our newsroom, which has grown tremendously—in size and reach and renown—since its inception in 1976.

You may be wondering: What does it take to publish an investigation? And what does my donation actually fund? The answers are one and the same: It takes people, resources, and time. And that’s what your donation funds directly.

Every donation Mother Jones receives from readers fortifies our newsroom, whether we’re covering underreported scandals out of Washington, DC, or the most important news of the day. And right now, each donation will be doubled because of our $50,000 match. So when you make a donation—$5, $50, any amount—it’ll go twice as far.

Your support keeps us going. If you’re able, donate today.

Thanks for reading.

—Monika

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

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

Subscribe

INDEPENDENT. BECAUSE OF YOU.

Mother Jones has no billionaires calling the shots—just readers like you making fearless reporting possible

Donate