Another good argument for public radio and having at least one source where folks can get genuine information and not corporate propaganda!<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Ted Moffett <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com">starbliss@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">Listening to G. Gordon Liddy's radio show this morning (950 AM KOZE<br>
Lewiston), he interviewed Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) on US<br>
Congressional votes regarding EPA regulation of greenhouse gases.<br>
Listeners were informned by Liddy that CO2 is too heavy to be a cause<br>
of global warming (I am paraphrasing), as it will sink to the lower<br>
levels of the atmosphere. Grand Senator Inhofe chimed in with<br>
agreement!<br>
<br>
Liddy asked Inhofe what people can do to address US Congressional<br>
action on this issue. Senator Inhofe recommended making a list of who<br>
voted to not delay or block the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse<br>
gases, as a reference to take action against these politicians.<br>
<br>
Maybe Liddy will interview NASA's climate scientist James Hansen<br>
regarding the following peer reviewed paper from "Science" journal,<br>
2005: "Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications"<br>
<a href="http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Hansen_etal_1.pdf" target="_blank">http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Hansen_etal_1.pdf</a><br>
<br>
Forget about it!<br>
<br>
It's one thing to discuss in the abstract the anti-science propaganda<br>
promoted in mainstream media regarding anthropogenic climate change,<br>
but to listen to it live as voters are misled with scientific nonsense<br>
to influence government policy, is a chilling revelation.<br>
<br>
Article below from "Cimate Science Watch," March 28, 2011, regarding<br>
votes in the US Congress on EPA regulation of greenhouse gases, and<br>
Senator Inhofe's prominant role in attempting to block the EPA on this<br>
issue. If Obama sees a bill on his desk to delay or block the EPA on<br>
this issue, will he veto?<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2011/03/28/will-senate-democrats-stand-up-for-epa-regulation-of-greenhouse-gases-%E2%80%93-or-vote-to-block-it/" target="_blank">http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2011/03/28/will-senate-democrats-stand-up-for-epa-regulation-of-greenhouse-gases-%E2%80%93-or-vote-to-block-it/</a><br>
<br>
Will Senate Democrats stand up for EPA regulation of greenhouse<br>
gases--- or vote to block it?<br>
<br>
March 28, 2011 by Rick Piltz<br>
<br>
Returning from a week long recess, the Senate confronts voting on amendments<br>
that would halt EPA rulemaking to limit emissions from stationary<br>
sources, including power plants and refineries. There appears to be an<br>
excellent chance that such a ban, for two years at least, will get<br>
enough Democratic votes to pass.<br>
<br>
The Environmental Protection Agency is moving toward putting new<br>
requirements for major stationary sources in place, starting later in<br>
2011 and in 2012 with New Source Performance Standards for electric<br>
utilities and oil refineries.<br>
<br>
Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-Nevada) apparently agreed before the<br>
recess last week to allow floor votes to prohibit or delay this<br>
action, as amendments to an unrelated small business bill. Enactment<br>
of either a permanent ban (via an amendment sponsored by Majority<br>
Leader Grant McConnell (R-Kentucky), or a two-year ban, sponsored by<br>
Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-West Virginia), would prevent EPA from<br>
carrying out its responsibility under the Clean Air Act to promulgate<br>
emissions-limiting rules pursuant to the agency’s scientifically based<br>
Endangerment Finding. Floor action on the proposed amendments,<br>
originally expected before the recess, was delayed as party leaders<br>
counted votes and jockeyed for position.<br>
<br>
The McConnell amendment is essentially the same as legislation to kill<br>
EPA climate-related rulemaking introduced earlier as stand-alone<br>
legislation (S. 482) by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), a leader in<br>
the global warming denial machine. The Inhofe bill, commonly referred<br>
to as Upton-Inhofe (or is it Inhofe-Upton?), is the same as<br>
legislation (H.R. 910) approved by the House Energy and Commerce<br>
Committee on March 15. The House version of the bill (titled the<br>
“Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011”, though it does not deal with tax<br>
policy) is expected to reach the House floor for debate and final vote<br>
shortly after mid-April.<br>
<br>
All but four of the 48 Republican Senators are officially signed on to<br>
Inhofe’s S. 482 as co-sponsors (excepting only Snowe and Collins of<br>
Maine, Brown of Massachusetts, and Kirk of Illinois). These 44 can be<br>
expected to support the McConnell-Inhofe amendment to the small<br>
business bill. But since, as a practical procedural matter, 60 votes<br>
will be needed for passage, they would need to peel off at least 12<br>
and potentially as many as 16 Democrats to join them.<br>
<br>
It appears that the votes of numerous Democratic Senators are<br>
potentially in play on legislation to kill or delay EPA<br>
climate-related rulemaking. Some of them, at least, can raise<br>
legitimate questions and voice legitimate concerns about how<br>
regulation might affect manufacturing jobs directly and other jobs<br>
indirectly in their states. But I would be a bit surprised if so many<br>
of them associated themselves with the right-wing approach of the<br>
Inhofe bill.<br>
<br>
Probably much more likely is that, having disposed of the<br>
McConnell-Inhofe amendment, a fair number of Democrats will join with<br>
Republicans to pass the proposed Rockefeller amendment to delay<br>
further action by EPA for the next two years. The ostensible rationale<br>
for such a delay is to give Congress time to enact new legislation to<br>
deal with climate and energy in some alternative way.<br>
<br>
Of course, Congress is highly unlikely to enact meaningful climate<br>
legislation in the next two years, and perhaps for a good deal longer<br>
than that, after the Obama Administration and Senate Democrats screwed<br>
up their opportunity to get something done during 2009-2010. That kind<br>
of opportunity, which requires the alignment of multiple forces and<br>
effective execution, doesn’t come around very often.<br>
<br>
But “let Congress do this, it’s a Congressional responsibility that<br>
shouldn’t be left to unelected bureaucrats” can serve as a convenient<br>
rationale (cover story? fig leaf?) for not doing anything – at least,<br>
not doing anything until sometime after the next national election –<br>
while undercutting a federal agency charged with carrying out<br>
responsibilities given to it by the Congressionally enacted Clean Air<br>
Act, with its authority to regulate carbon emissions upheld by a U.S.<br>
Supreme Court decision.<br>
<br>
Rockefeller presumably will argue that a two-year delay would give<br>
Congress time to enact meaningful energy legislation that would lead<br>
to reduced emissions of greenhouse gases and promote alternatives to<br>
current coal technology. So: how likely is it that the current<br>
Congress will agree on a substantial, coherent, and environmentally<br>
sound energy bill? Why would doing so require blocking action by EPA<br>
for years, except as a political payoff to fossil fuel interests that<br>
are unlikely to support good energy legislation? One can be<br>
skeptical.<br>
<br>
On March 17, E&E News PM (subscription required) quoted Rockefeller thus:<br>
<br>
The West Virginian has said he would not support Inhofe's permanent<br>
pre-emption bill, because it would "emasculate the EPA."<br>
<br>
Still, he has said a temporary stay on EPA rules is necessary to allow<br>
coal-fired power plants to transition to low-carbon technologies.<br>
<br>
"We don't have an energy policy," Rockefeller continued. "We don't<br>
have the technology properly developed. We do in West Virginia, but<br>
others aren't investing in that technology because they feel the EPA<br>
is going to change the rules on them. And so two years is just<br>
perfect. And people understand that. I mean, there's a reason that we<br>
have a lot of votes."<br>
<br>
EPA rulemaking on greenhouse gases will/would be phased in over a<br>
period of years, with steps (albeit far short of what is truly needed)<br>
in the right direction on climate change and promotion of more<br>
efficient energy use. There is much to be debated on climate and<br>
energy policy. Does Rockefeller have a good argument? At this point<br>
it seems to me that for Senators to keep EPA from doing its job would<br>
be a major cop-out.<br>
<br>
And Democrats, in supporting the Rockefeller two-year delay, would be<br>
in conflict with the position that has been held steadily (so far) by<br>
the President. If anything like this comes out of Congress when the<br>
dust settles, it would put Obama in the position of having either to<br>
veto a “bipartisan” decision or abandon a principled position on<br>
climate policy.<br>
------------------------------------------<br>
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<br>
<br>
=======================================================<br>
List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
=======================================================<br>
</blockquote></div><br>