Murkowski vs. the Clean Air Act: Round 2


The Senate voted down an attempt to take away the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate carbon dioxide pollution last month, but the fight isn’t over. In fact, it’s only beginning.

That measure, offered by Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski, was premised (rather shakily, considering its source) on the idea that Congress, not the EPA, should act on climate change. But now that the Senate has made it clear that it’s not doing anything anytime soon, Murkowski is planning to take another jab at the Clean Air Act.

Now Murkowski is considering whether to take it upon herself to offer the measure that Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) floated, which would set a two-year time-out on new regulations on planet-warming gases from the EPA, set to begin phasing in next year. Rockefeller says he has been promised a floor vote on that measure. Murkowski says she’s just “helping” Democrats get around to voting on Rockefeller’s measure.

So far, she’s floated the idea of pinning it to the small business bill currently under consideration, since it doesn’t look like Majority Leader Harry Reid will allow amendments on that bill.

More on her plans, via The Hill:

Murkowski said that it would be more natural to offer Rockefeller’s amendment to an upcoming oil-spill response and energy package, but that “it doesn’t look like we’ll have any opportunity to have any amendments [to that package]. Which I find quite stunning.”

“So at this point in time, I’m helping the majority leader keep his commitment to bringing the Rockefeller bill up for a vote.”

The vote on Murkowski’s last measure was uncomfortably close, with six Democrats siding with the entirety of the Republican Party against the EPA. A vote on Rockefeller could be even closer, especially now that regulations under the Clean Air Act loom on the horizon in 2011. Now that the Senate has punted on climate action, expect these EPA attacks to become more potent in the coming months.

More Mother Jones reporting on Climate Desk

A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS?

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and we can't afford to come up short. But when a reader recently asked how being a nonprofit makes Mother Jones different from other news organizations, we realized we needed to lay this out better: Because "in absolutely every way" is essentially the answer.

So we tried to explain why your year-end donations are so essential, and we'd like your help refining our pitch about what make Mother Jones valuable and worth reading to you.

We'd also like your support of our journalism with a year-end donation if you can right now—all online gifts will be doubled until we hit our $350,000 goal thanks to an incredibly generous donor's matching gift pledge.

payment methods

A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS?

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and we can't afford to come up short. But when a reader recently asked how being a nonprofit makes Mother Jones different from other news organizations, we realized we needed to lay this out better: Because "in absolutely every way" is essentially the answer.

So we tried to explain why your year-end donations are so essential, and we'd like your help refining our pitch about what make Mother Jones valuable and worth reading to you.

We'd also like your support of our journalism with a year-end donation if you can right now—all online gifts will be doubled until we hit our $350,000 goal thanks to an incredibly generous donor's matching gift pledge.

payment methods

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

Support our journalism

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

Donate